What airplane is overall better Bonanzas or Mooneys

gsengle said:
Higher speed aircraft with swept wings have other aerodynamic considerations. Our 100-200kt aircraft don't qualify. You sure you're a pilot?
Click to expand...

The personal attacks are unnecessary Greg.

So how fast does a typical SR22, M350 or Lancair 2- place airplane fly? All of those were used as examples in my previous post.
 
Real aircraft don't need sweep, taper or or a training wheel... what a sweetie!
12688386edeb86f45f12d7ddebabc90c.jpg



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
AdamZ said:
Without a doubt Bonanzas are better. Why is that? Well because thats what I own. Seriously they are both fantastic planes. Mooney is bit more efficient and the bigger ones are a bit faster than the bonanzas but not too much. Bonanzas are a bit stouter and handle grass a bit better but there are those that have no issues in a Mooney on grass. Mooney as have a roll cage that I credit in part to saving my friends life. You also feel the bumps a good bit more in a Mooney. But like I said both great aircraft.
Click to expand...

I was with you right until the end... Where do you get that from? FWIW, wing loading is within 5%.

GRG55 said:
1. Unless one is descending at a high angle of attack the direction of flight is usually aligned with the longitudinal axis of the airplane - the angle between the direction of flight and the trailing edge of the rudder won't change in that circumstance, regardless of the angle of attack.
Click to expand...

Ummm... The angle between the direction of flight and the trailing edge of the rudder *changes with angle of attack*. Your statement above doesn't make sense as written. Can you clarify?

2. On most airplanes the most effective part of the rudder is the top because it is in the least disturbed air. Because of this, most rudders are tapered from bottom to top (the chord at the top is less than at the bottom), in part to more evenly distribute the aerodynamic loads along the length of the rudder.
Click to expand...

Most? Many are, many are not. WRT to the "least disturbed air" I think that depends on the length of the rudder, the diameter of the prop, and their relative position.

4. A rearward swept tail puts the most effective part of the vertical stabiliser and rudder further back, which, for a given fuselage length, increases the moment arm from the airplane's center of mass, thus increasing the effectiveness of the rudder. It also means the rudder can be smaller and lighter than if it is positioned further forward. It's not just for marketing. ;)
Click to expand...

So the arm is increased, but now the rudder is at an angle to the relative wind, kind of like the wing is in a slip or skid. There's more to it than just the arm. I can't say whether the Mooney style rudder is more or less effective because of that, but neither can you. ;)

5. The Mooney hinge line is not vertical as a P-51 or Extra 300. It is canted forward, and the Mooney rudder is not tapered. That suggests maintaining the area at the top of the rudder was necessary to offset the loss of effectiveness from the decreasing moment arm from bottom to top.
Click to expand...

Or, like another poster suggested, that Al Mooney just liked it that way.

I can say that the Mooney's rudder is VERY effective. I just can't tell you quantitatively how much or why.
 
I'm quoting from "Illustrated guide to aerodynamics":
Nothing is gained from the swept vertical tail on the low-speed airplane except a snazzy look. The sweep distracts from the efficiency at slow speed's just as it does with the wing, this in turn requires more vertical tail area and consequently creates a bit more drag, sales of such configurations prove that the swept tail is worth the trade-off because airplane buyers seem to relish the aesthetics as much as the efficiency.

And from the same book, swept wings are less effective at slow speeds, but as speeds 0.75 and above provide improvement in the drag coefficient.

One more thing, the Mooney elevators are cut to allow rudder movement but I believe that also prevents interfering with flow of air past the rudder.
 
Last edited:
I thought the rudders were tapered to reduce the forces higher on the tail, the forces above the CG would produce an undesirable rolling movement acting against the turn. Not from uneven forces due to disturbed air flow.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I was with you right until the end... Where do you get that from? FWIW, wing loading is within 5%.
Click to expand...

Kent, got it from MooneyPilots dot com which I think is the MAPA site. Other than that anecdotal, from my experience and that of a friend that has had an M20C and M20E who have has flown with me in my Bo.
 
GRG55 said:
The personal attacks are unnecessary Greg.

So how fast does a typical SR22, M350 or Lancair 2- place airplane fly? All of those were used as examples in my previous post.
Click to expand...

Not fast enough to benefit from wing or tail sweep. You need to be a significant percentage of Mach 1 if I recall correctly. So any swept tail prop planes are more marketing then aerodynamics influenced.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
teejayevans said:
I thought the rudders were tapered to reduce the forces higher on the tail, the forces above the CG would produce an undesirable rolling movement acting against the turn. Not from uneven forces due to disturbed air flow.
Click to expand...

Having them tapered also reduces the force moment around the base of the vertical stab, allowing for lower weight due to less beefiness needed there. Mooneys are very beefy, no taper needed. :)

Also, you'd have to have a pretty extremely long V-stab/rudder before any significant rolling forces were introduced. Think about the arm of the ailerons around the longitudinal axis vs. the rudder. In addition, any such forces with any normal-length rudder would be more than counteracted by the increased angle of attack of the opposite wing, if there is dihedral present on that design.
 
AdamZ said:
Kent, got it from MooneyPilots dot com which I think is the MAPA site. Other than that anecdotal, from my experience and that of a friend that has had an M20C and M20E who have has flown with me in my Bo.
Click to expand...

So, the M20C and E are both short body birds, which are not only short (reduced moment around the CG of the tail feathers), they're also the lightest of the Mooneys (IE, lighter wing loading).

I forget which Bo variant you have, but I expect it weighs more (and has higher wing loading) than a short-body Mooney, so it would ride better. Comparing an Ovation to an A36, though, they should be almost identical in how they handle the bumps.
 
teejayevans said:
I'm quoting from "Illustrated guide to aerodynamics":
Nothing is gained from the swept vertical tail on the low-speed airplane except a snazzy look.
Click to expand...
Cessna Manager of Flight Test & Aerodynamics, Bill Thompson, wrote this about the "Flight-Sweep" tail introduced on the 1960 C-172A:

As expected, we paid a slight price in reduced rudder power, which was noticeable mainly in less prompt spin recoveries and a slight degradation in crosswind landing drift correction capability. Directional stability was also diminished a slight amount, and the weight of the vertical tail increased slightly. However, this change was welcomed by our customers, and it started a trend toward swept tails on our other models. The author and his aerodynamicists thought that it was amusing that our fastest models (the C-310 and T-37) featured a straight vertical tail.​
 
Skyrys62 said:
They were originally called a Mooner, which had a very round tail that always seemed to have a crack in it. Tough to market
Click to expand...
yup....kinda of a different looking ass end. :eek:

not to be confused with the split tail or the forked tail.......:no:
 
Comparing the Mooney and Bonanza seem like an unlikely match up.. that's going to depend a lot on someone's mission I imagine, IE, how many people do they need to be carrying. If it is just one, or maybe two people, I feel like the Mooney is going to be a better plane (fast, good gph relatively, etc.). If you have any real need to routinely carry people in the back then I feel like the Bo wins. Both are complex and both are retract... so you can't really bring that into it (as we do in the Cirrus vs X threads)

The swept tails were definitely for marketing... but I think the razor sharp straight (or forward?) tail on the Mooney is a bit of a trademark now too. I don't hate it, I think it sets apart nicely, and I've read elsewhere (not just on here) that there may be some aerodynamic advantages to it, mainly at high AoA. The Mooney tails remind me a little bit of the forward swept Blanik glider wings... those things look sooooo good
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
please explain the high angle of attack thingy......what's the tail doing then?
Click to expand...
Pardon my epic photo shop skills, I have to run to dinner so this is the best I can do now. Maybe @gsengle or someone can post something fancier. In the Skyhawk at a high AoA the airflow is going to be much more parallel to the plane of the rudder than on the Mooney. Obviously the angles are exaggerated for illustration... but if you are at a high AoA I feel like having good rudder authority is going to be useful. Someone up thread noted that the Mooney's seem to have more effective rudders (I've never flown one, so I have no idea...)

upload_2017-8-29_20-29-13.png
 
And then the Mooney tail
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-8-29_20-31-21.png
    upload_2017-8-29_20-31-21.png
    548.6 KB · Views: 34
problem is .....that's the wrong angle of attack for the rudder.

Remember it's a lifting surface and it generates lift 90 degrees from that axis...about the "z" direction or better known as the yaw axis.
 
teejayevans said:
Still pictures are not evidence, I can go into a dive, level out, and be 20 knots above cruise speed. I'm not saying you would do that but you need to post video!
Edit: I just saw the 172 video, that's great!
Click to expand...
You essentially just accused the poster of lying. He doesn't need a video. You need some couth.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
problem is .....that's the wrong angle of attack for the rudder.
Click to expand...
Right, but I think about it like this, if air is flowing straight across that stabilizer lengthwise, not width wise, then the rudder itself will have very little efficacy. I think it's the same reason you don't see crazy sweep (or any) on GA
 
Tantalum said:
Right, but I think about it like this, if air is flowing straight across that stabilizer lengthwise, not width wise, then the rudder itself will have very little efficacy. I think it's the same reason you don't see crazy sweep (or any) on GA
Click to expand...
a forward sloping tail....like the Mooney....effectively "reduces" the chord length in an exaggerated angle of attack....like pictured.....and that "reduces" tail effectiveness vs. improves it.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
a forward sloping tail....like the Mooney....effectively "reduces" the chord length in an exaggerated angle of attack....like pictured.....and that "reduces" tail effectiveness vs. improves it.
Click to expand...

It's the moving rudder surface that matters to this discussion not the vertical stabilizer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
gsengle said:
It's the moving rudder surface that matters to this discussion not the vertical stabilizer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Give up, you're just feeding the troll . . . He will never admit to understanding, his game is to keep egging you on and on and on and . . .
 
Hank S said:
Give up, you're just feeding the troll . . . He will never admit to understanding, his game is to keep egging you on and on and on and . . .
Click to expand...

Shame because once earlier on the thread he briefly made sense :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Distilling 350+ posts in this thread, I can now present [cue fanfare] ...

The World's Most Perfect Airplane!!!

Comoonchey.jpeg

(No, not Photoshopped. My dad took this photo at Grants Pass, Oregon, about fifteen years ago.)

Sadly, the airplane and its owner were lost in a low-level maneuvering accident in 2006. But I found an old archived "for sale" ad online, with some background and more photos:

WHY BUILD A LANCAIR, GLASAIR, RV? Here are 4-seats, high-performance experimental, already completeted, testflown and flying IFR, for a fraction of the cost!!!!

Unique 4-PLACE EXPERIMENTAL- IFR Amateur-built (1967 Mooney Super-21E fuselage, Beechcraft Musketeer Vertical fin & rudder, Mooney-Aerostar-based wing, Cessna 337 "Skymaster" rear-engine, Beech tip-tanks). Flown over 1200 hours since first licensed in 1983 by the seller. Cruises 180 mph at 10-11 gph, with 94 gallons fuel.

Comoonchey2.jpg

Comoonchey_panel1.jpg

Comoonchey_panel2.jpg​
 
Dang ... I thought it was a Deboony or a Mooniare...

Interesting ...
 
This thread has progressed from vaguely off topic to "silly."

In Al Mooney's biography he did not deny that the tail was a bit of a design queue. He said that the rudder was more effective at a high AOA, but he did not claim that as a significant effect.

Al Mooney was not at all a good business man, but he was a very effective aircraft designer and was never afraid to think outside the box. I personally believe that the reverse tail was simply something he did differently just as a personal design queue. BMW's have kept a version of the oval grille, other car makers have their own design queues as a way to identify their designs. The reverse tail works, so why not?

Al had very savvy design skills and his brother Art had great production savvy. They were a great team, and gave us aircraft that were different and even superior with some features such as manual gear, pump up flaps, safety cages and (my favorite) control rods in the place of stretchy cables.

Al designed and certified with the predecessor to the FAA, before he was old enough to legally drink. For those who haven't read his biography, get a copy. It is a fun read.
 
Pilawt said:
Distilling 350+ posts in this thread, I can now present [cue fanfare] ...

The World's Most Perfect Airplane!!!

View attachment 55983

(No, not Photoshopped. My dad took this photo at Grants Pass, Oregon, about fifteen years ago.)

Sadly, the airplane and its owner were lost in a low-level maneuvering accident in 2006. But I found an old archived "for sale" ad online, with some background and more photos:

WHY BUILD A LANCAIR, GLASAIR, RV? Here are 4-seats, high-performance experimental, already completeted, testflown and flying IFR, for a fraction of the cost!!!!

Unique 4-PLACE EXPERIMENTAL- IFR Amateur-built (1967 Mooney Super-21E fuselage, Beechcraft Musketeer Vertical fin & rudder, Mooney-Aerostar-based wing, Cessna 337 "Skymaster" rear-engine, Beech tip-tanks). Flown over 1200 hours since first licensed in 1983 by the seller. Cruises 180 mph at 10-11 gph, with 94 gallons fuel.

View attachment 55984

View attachment 55985

View attachment 55986​
Click to expand...

They crashed in a low level maneuvering accident? Need anything further be said?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top