I believe the 3368 gross is actually a limitation on how far they can stretch the original M20 type certificate.

I bummed a ride from a guy in a Bravo several years ago. I'm just over 6'3" and had lusted over Mooneys since college. I got settled into the passenger seat and my head was crammed against the ceiling sideways. I thought this was going to be a miserable ride as years of Mooney love drained out of my soul. I was as crushed as when I saw that beautiful HS cheerleader without her makeup for the first time. Then the pilot said that his very short wife usually sits there and that I can crank the seat down if I want. Down down down I went until I had ample headroom and much joy was to be found. I had a wonderful 2 hour ride, barely saying anything as I didn't want to sound like a blithering idiot.

Exactly, mine as 1500 ibs useful load on wheels and still 1050 ibs on amphibious floats.

You haven't read much of BT, then.


Yes, but you had a ready option for the last 15%.

Suppose that was the only crane you had, you wold lose those jobs that were in the 15%. Then it might be worth having more crane than you need for the other 85%, especially since those 15% are likely the big jobs.

Maybe 10% of my flights are long range, but the represent about a third of my flying hours. That was my point, what you normalize against, trips, hours, miles, makes a difference in how you view the 10/90 split.

Mike C.

I believe the 3368 gross is actually a limitation on how far they can stretch the original M20 type certificate.

As does a T210 owner. [/quote]

Which is sort of why this 182 owner asked the question, while wishing he had the UL of a 185.....


RAS[/quote]
What is your UL? Mine being just shy of 1300#

You haven't read much of BT, then.


Yes, but you had a ready option for the last 15%.

Suppose that was the only crane you had, you wold lose those jobs that were in the 15%. Then it might be worth having more crane than you need for the other 85%, especially since those 15% are likely the big jobs.

Maybe 10% of my flights are long range, but the represent about a third of my flying hours. That was my point, what you normalize against, trips, hours, miles, makes a difference in how you view the 10/90 split.

Mike C.

I flew a 2002 G1 model for a few years. It had 1,101 lbs of useful load. I've seen a few others listed with a little more.

Add the turbo, AC and TKS and the useful load goes down with them. Each can be a good feature to have depending upon where you live, but they come at a cost in both dollars and weight.

Well, if you had the first five you might get the last one too.

Well, if you had the first five you might get the last one too.

So why didn't Mooney just keep the Max Landing Weight for it and increase the Max Gross? Seems like there's something more to it than that.

All of this is what ultimately led me to the Baron (or 310). I looked at Cirri, but in addition to the up-front cost which stretched the budget, the UL was just so far below what I needed that it excluded the plane from consideration. The G5 which might as well be a GV to my wallet, just barely meets my load requirements which I don't consider to be overly demanding. I need to be able to haul my family of four relatively light people, baggage for a week, and maybe an ice chest air conditioner for 700 NM in four hours or less with a minimum one hour fuel reserve. It must either have two engines or a parachute. Nothing that I've seen short of the G5 can do that, and it just barely does it whereas the Baron has room and weight to spare. Of course it costs more to operate the Baron, but weight and balance is not an issue unless you're hauling bricks.

The bottom line is that very few single engined airplanes can fill all of the seats with full fuel and baggage and be within weight and balance. They weren't designed to operate that way. In some cases its a practical power:weight limitation, in others it's an economy placed by the manufacturer. In any case if you want to really load the plane up you need to look very hard for the right single, or expand your search to twins and turbines.

How can that be. I thought an unenhanced G3 was 2320 lbs, and gross weight was 3400 lbs. How did you get 1200 lbs payload?

Useful load aside, of the 30 airplanes I've owned over the last, almost, 50 years, I miss the Bravo the most.

As that realization has sunk in, it has surprised no one more than myself.



Jg

You just described exactly how I ended up in the Baron as well. For the slightly higher opex I saved just over 60% in capex. Assuming I was smart and invested that money the returns on it would pretty easily pay the additional opex. Never claimed to be smart though. Now back to planning the new panel in my plane.