Talk:Mooney M20

thankyou 2005
This is an excellent article-thankyou --unsigned by 202.173.128.90 at 11:06, 30 October 2005

Fuel Capacity
A 1978 model M20J (201) carries 64 gallons of fuel, and can burn less than 10 gph once in cruise. It has a useful load of about 1000lbs, but carries 384lbs of fuel max, leaving 616lbs for pilot, passengers and gear. Of course, if you don't need the full range, you can load it with less fuel and carry more passenger weight. There are tabs in the tanks at the 52 gallon mark for this purpose. Carol Ann Garrett flew around the world single handed in a 1978 M20j in 2003. http://www.kerrlake.com/mgarratt/INDEX.HTM Her plane was equipped with long range fuel tanks, and she was able to power back to burn about 8.5gph in cruise allowing the plane to traverse the oceans in single legs without stopping. --unsigned by 65.160.201.19 at 04:24, 17 August 2006

Rewrite
I've just finished a rewrite of the article: I'm not a Mooney owner myself, and would be grateful if others could check to make sure I haven't introduced factual errors. David 21:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * generalized the article so that it doesn't deal just with the M20J
 * removed much extraneous information (such as explanations of how oil is distributed in piston engines, or how drag is caused)
 * removed marketing-type claims and neutralized the tone
 * reduced the amount of technical detail
 * reordered the sections for readability
 * reduced the structural complexity


 * gday, im the original author of the article,
 * i think you overly culled my humble article mate! take it easy!
 * There is another page on the Mooney 20 series, this is specifically on the 20j and ill try to get the name changed-
 * please revert som of the info back!
 * --unsigned by 220.235.164.23 at 05:37, 14 September 2006


 * Thank you very much for your original contributions &mdash; they're still in the article history, and we can pull some of them back out when we figure out how to arrange things. I cannot find another article on the Mooney M20, though there is a general article on the Mooney company. The original article before my edit was a mixture of general M20 info (such as the safety stats) and model-specific M20J info.  I think it's appropriate to have a general Mooney M20 article (as the title suggests), just like the general Piper Cherokee, Cessna 172, etc. articles.
 * I think it's important not to go overboard on the model-specific information, because our articles would become huge (think of all the Cessna 172 models), especially if we include too much POH-type information. If you want, you can start an article on the Mooney M20J (just follow this link if you're logged in), but people might object that we're getting too specific -- do we really want a separate articles for the Cessna 172M, 172N, 172P, 172R, 172S, etc?  A separate article for the Ovation/Bravo might make sense, though.
 * Another, perhaps better option is to add a new section to the M20J article called something like "M20 models", and then a subsection with 1-2 paragraphs about M20J-specific information. Again, it's critical not to try to make the article into either marketing material or a mini-POH, since neither suits Wikipedia's audience.  I'll be happy to help you choose the most notable info M20J from the article history, if you want to go this route.  David 20:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I added a little bit of generic talk to this article, but overall I agree that this article is WAY too M20J specific. The interesting thing is that the majority of the information is generic and applies to all M20 series aircraft (e.g., wing dihedral, airframe, undercarriage, fuel system, prop, etc. is shared by all M20 series aircraft including the new ones).  By just changing "201" to "M20" would fix most of this article.  Why not make this a generic M20 article and point out the specifics where the models vary?  I think that documenting the historical changes and evolution of the M20 series would be much more interesting to wikipedia readers than focusing on one model sub-type.
 * --unsigned by User:Freeweel at 17:02, 1 January 2007

Layout
The usual Wikipedia article layout features a short paragraph, and AFTER that a table of contents. Full size photographs are not usually shown, they are thumbnailed and floating left or right. I updated this article conforming to this. --Ysangkok 21:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy
The bit about Porsche requiring M20L owners to convert to Continental engines isn't true. There's an airworthy M20L on eBay right now with the original engine, for example. But I haven't edited the article yet because I know that many M20Ls have been re-engined, and I don't know what role Porsche played in those conversions, or whether they still offer any support for the several examples still flying with Porsche engines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jelliott4 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Gear safety
I've taught in Mooneys for the last 5 years and have owned a Mooney for the last 10. I think the discussion regarding the gear safety swtich is mixing up two different thing. First, all models of Mooney have a "squat" switch to prevent retraction of the gear while on the ground (most all aircraft have this). Second, a few of the older model M20's also had an air switch that forced the gear to extend when below a certain speed. This was to avoid gear up landings, and has nothing to do with grand retraction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.12.119 (talk) 08:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

FL280?
The M20K section states, at one point, "a top speed of 252 mph (406 km/h) in level flight (at FL 280)." FL280? That's way above the claimed ceiling for the series if 18,800 feet. --unsigned by 203.212.48.103 at 08:06, 8 July 2008

Userbox
If you have flown an M20 series Mooney, please feel free to put this userbox on your user page!

- Ahunt (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Knots abbreviation kn / kt
Hi, I understand that the more common abbreviation for knots (nautical miles per hour) is 'kts' rather than 'kn' which is used in the article (I noticed it in the section on the M20TN, where it was comparing speeds with other aircraft. I was going to edit it, but it is written in a way that I don't know how to edit without possibly messing up the conversions (being a Wikipedia novice!) Any thoughts anyone? Cheers, Oliver. 92.233.84.225 (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You have to leave it as is, due to the templates involved, if you edit them it will break the templates. The use of kn for knots was arrived at through a consensus process on units in Wikipedia in general, due to the fact that officially 'kt' means kilotons and not knots. - Ahunt (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Passive Phrasing
This article includes a large amount of passive phrasing. Has anyone else found that this makes the article difficult to read? I don't mind changing it if others have noticed the same. --RobertGary1 (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Some people object to passive voice, while it doesn't bother others. The Manual of Style actually recommends using it for articles, especially as an alternative to second person pronoun use, which is avoided in Wikipedia, mostly because it ends up reading like a User Manual, which is not permitted. You can change that and re-write it if you like as long as you don't change it to second person or substantitively change the meanings as cited from the refs. - Ahunt (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional note: You may want to have a look at the article English passive voice for some advice too. "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Passive voice, but it really should stand is written by Churchill! --unsigned by Ahunt (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2009

"Later M20s"
The article mentions that "Later M20s" have stall strips. My 76 model has stall strips. I'm not sure if that is later or not. I wish I knew the year that they were introduced but I don't generally think of 1976 as "later" in Mooney years. Could just be me. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertGary1 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is tagged as "citation needed" and I agree it is pretty vague. If we can source something that says when they started being used that would help, otherwise perhaps it is too trivial for an encyclopedia article and, being unsourced, should be removed. - Ahunt (talk)

Confusion
As a non-airplane person, and one who is just trying to gather information, I found that the article contains a big problem. The various models' headings are a great idea, and one would assume that they represent the dividing line between subjects, but they do not. One model is often mentioned in the area reserved for another, and the whole article blurs this line, causing the reader to wonder which sentence was about which model. This only causes confusion in an article that should be factual and simple. It needs a re-write. - KitchM (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I just re-read the variants section and I am not clear what the problem is that you are describing. When each model is an incremental evolution upon an earlier model, as is the case with the M20 series, it is rather difficult not to describe models in terms of improvements or changes to the previous design. Perhaps you can point out a specific instance where you found this confusing? - Ahunt (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

"Survivors" ???
I'm very confused as to what this heading represents? I think it is suppose to refer to famous Mooneys or famous Mooney pilots. Could someone explain why the heading is called "Survivors"? Thx! --RobertGary1 (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out. The reference for what this means is at WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content, which says: "Survivors should be information on aircraft that have survived following the retirement of the aircraft type from normal military or commercial use. It should include airworthy aircraft and any non-airworthy aircraft not on public display but otherwise notable." It is really designed for privately flying examples of retired military aircraft and is not appropriate for this article. This section should be retitled "Aircraft on display" as per WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content, which I will do. Thanks for bringing this up! - Ahunt (talk) 23:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Safety Record
Article has outdated reference to 1981 thru 1990 period (or some accident records almost 30 years old???) How is this relevant to today's world (i.e. - updated avionics, better pilot training, better models, weather avoidance, etc.). Also seems to infer that "clouds" by themselves cause accidents? No mention on how many of the total accidents were fatal or whether the accidents may have simply been mis-haps, hard landings, etc., etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.137.156.44 (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It was challenged as unsourced almost three years ago, so I have removed it. - Ahunt (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

M20E
The M20E is NOT a high-performance aircraft, as it has only 200 hp. I won't go into a discussion whether or not it's REALLY 200 hp, because in the certification 2 hp were added because it was "assumed it would be lost in the overall process", but I merely refer to 61.31(f)1, which clearly says that a high perf airplane has MORE than 200 hp. In addition, I think the caption of the 5th picture is wrong. That's not an M20E, due to the three side windows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cainoom (talk • contribs) 20:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You are confusing what the FAA considers a high performance aircraft with what other reliable sources consider a high performance aircraft. Wikipedia requires a reliable reference to include qualifiers like "high performance", which don't necessarily agree with what the FAA says. One aim of Wikipedia is not to be "USA-centric" on topics that are world-wide, and that is applicable to this topic since M20s are flown in many countries, not just the US.
 * As far as the M20E photo of C-FTEM, the Transport Canada Canadian Civil aircraft register, which is a reliable source, shows it as an M20E, which is reflected in the caption. - Ahunt (talk) 11:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You are confusing the fourth with the fifth picture. The one you are referring to is the fourth picture on this page. But I just looked up the plane shown on the fifth picture, and that is indeed an M20E as well. However, it's highly modified (201 cowling, 201 windshield, 201 side windows, etc.). I don't think it's a good idea to show highly modified planes and then refer in the caption to the type of the basic airframe. I think the whole point of showing a plane type with a caption is to show how the *original* plane looks/looked like. With these mods this plane could also have been an M20C, you can't really tell, I had to look it up to verify. But then it's missing the point. You now have two pictures showing "M20E" basic airframes, yet the two planes look very different. Alternatively, showing highly modified types can be valuable, but then it should *say* so. I think it's very misleading the way it's shown, because the fifth picture does NOT show what a typical M20E looks like. It shows a highly modified M20E -- without saying so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cainoom (talk • contribs) 04:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Is this the photo you are referring to? - Ahunt (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)




 * No misleading intended. The aircraft clearly says Super 21 on the wingtip, and was verified by it's registration. (the "third window" may be part of the paint scheme). A photo of an unaltered M20e Super 21 inflight would be valid to replace this when available on commons. In the meantime, upgrades in the caption can be notedFlugKerl (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

"Mooney's checkerboard history"
What does that mean? Please remember to keep language in the encyclopedia understandable to the general public, and use wikilinks for jargon terms. -- BjKa (talk) 11:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Just looks like someone editorializing. . - Ahunt (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mooney M20. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928054542/http://www.mooney.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=577&Itemid=54 to http://www.mooney.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=577&Itemid=54

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

swept-forward M20 rudder HAS more authority at high angle of attack than a swept rudder.
The forward-swept rudder on the M20 has increased authority at high angle of attack. This can be proven mathematically, but I cited an entertaining article in an 1996 issue of Flying magazine instead of boring the reader with a bunch of vector mathematics. As a Mooney owner with a Ph.D. in engineering, I take more than passing interest in the vagaries of the design. Your assertion that the article I cited supports the opposite conclusion to the one I made is unfounded. I can't see how you got that notion from the article I cited. Let's look at what Garrison wrote. On page 56, first column, top paragraph, he wrote: "... in fact all of the basic criteria for a good vertical tail militate against sweep." The author goes on in the next paragraph: "When you sweep a vertical tail, you reduce its rudder authority..." Note that "sweep" in this context means aft sweep, while the Mooney rudder leans forward and is forward-swept. In the second column, about mid page on p. 56, the Garrison wrote "In fact, the swept-forward fin that is a hallmark of Mooneys was originally intended to enhance the spin recovery characteristics of Al Mooney's single-place Mite... by setting the rudder hinge line something closer to a right angle to the airflow in a spin.  What eventually became a styling feature began as a rather ingenious technical innovation." Would the author call a no-existent advantage "ingenious"? I don't think so. So, why are you preventing me from writing what is true? Can you prove that the forward swept rudder presents less area to the flow at high angle of attack, and is therefore less effective? You can't. It would be great if you would carefully read Garrison's article and replace the text that you deleted. Fogden (talk) 03:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing this issue here for discussion. First off credentials are of little importance on Wikipedia, see Expert editors, as we do not publish original research here, like mathematical calculations, instead we rely on what the cited reliable refs say, for reasons of verifiability. As far as publishing the truth on Wikipedia goes, please refer to WP:THETRUTH.


 * That said, let's examine the refs. The "Perky Tail" internet ref you cited, says:


 * Al Mooney felt the swept forward rudder would remain effective in a stall long after an aft swept fin and rudder would lose effectiveness. Here again, talk with enough aerodynamicists, and you will probably find one that will agree with Al Mooney. Ralph Harmon designed the M-22 Mooney Mustang with the same distinctive Mooney tail. All production units carried this tail, but Ralph did, later on, build and flight test an M-22 with an aft swept T-tail. It’s entirely possible that Ralph wasn’t convinced of the “perky tail’s” value. Much later, Roy LoPresti designed and flew the Mooney 301 with a conventional swept back tail of 50 degrees. He also used conventional trim tabs on the elevator and rudder. Although the M 301 was never produced, LoPresti must have felt there was no particular advantage in staying with Mooney’s trademark tail. Much later, in 1996, he told me that if he had it to do over he would have stayed with tradition and used the Mooney tail. Probably the safest ground to stand on is to consider the Mooney tail a trademark … and leave it at that.


 * In other words it specifically dismisses any aerodynamic advantages.


 * The paper ref you mention, Peter Garrison's Style vs. Substance: Some features add performance but some make fashion statements from Flying magazine, April 1995, took me a bit of digging to find, but I do have those years of Flying here in my own library and managed to blow the dust off that 25 year-old issue. On the subject of the Mooney tail, Garrison says, as you correctly quoted above, (with just one missing parenthetical part):


 * In fact, the swept-forward fin that is a hallmark of Mooneys was originally intended to enhance the spin recovery characteristics of Al Mooney's single-place Mite (which was to be an aerobatic airplane) by setting the rudder hinge line something closer to a right angle to the airflow in a spin. What eventually became a styling feature began as a rather ingenious technical innovation.


 * The text you proposed adding to the article is:


 * The effect of the vertical leading edge and forward leaning rudder on the vertical stabilizer is to increase the streamwise projected area of the rudder in high angle of attack flight such as in the landing flair, resulting in increased rudder effectiveness during that critical phase of flight.


 * Neither of the refs cited supports your proposed text. The "Perky Tail" section doesn't provide any support for any aerodynamic advantages, while Garrison indicates that the fin was intended to improve spin recovery, although it doesn't indicate any proof that this design intention was realized in testing.


 * Based on the two refs, if we were to add anything to the article, it would have to be that the tail design was intended to enhance spin recovery but there is no agreement among designers or evidence that it provides any advantage, although it did become a readily identified trademark of most Mooney designs. - Ahunt (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC).

Dear Expert Editor, I bow to your "expertness" and shall never attempt to apply my efforts to improving this wikipedia page again. Unless I find convincing proof. Fogden (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)