manoflamancha Posted April 18, 2014 Report Share Posted April 18, 2014 Looking at Mooney 201 or 231. Ideally turbo charged for flying out west. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Mazer Posted April 19, 2014 Report Share Posted April 19, 2014 Have you considerd a Rocket? Mine is up for sale. Search this site for: FS: 1986 252 M20K Rocket Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manoflamancha Posted April 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 19, 2014 Hi Dave, Yes, I've flown a friends Rocket and love the performance but I'm concerned about fuel burn and parts support from Rocket engineering. But for the right deal, I'd consider it. Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TWinter Posted April 19, 2014 Report Share Posted April 19, 2014 David, Still have you on my radar. We will be closing the business project I mentioned last fall within the next 2 to 3 weeks. It's been a long two years putting this business project together...finally coming together. Hopefully all will workout and we can talk again. Regards, Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banzai Posted April 19, 2014 Report Share Posted April 19, 2014 im thinking of selling my 1994 j model and moving up to a baron. it is an mse ser no 24-3325, 2350 tt engine and airframe.NDH the engine still has good compression and we do oil analysis every change at 30 hours but will be selling as runout. can deliver. if interested call me tom 954-303-4202 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M20F-1968 Posted April 19, 2014 Report Share Posted April 19, 2014 If you want economical but still need the utility of a turbo, I have a rebuilt RayJay Turbo system for an E or F, it could also be modified somewhat for a J with a DAR's assistance. If you find an E, F or J that you like, the turbo normalizer may be your answer. That would get you to 18,000 feet altitude, flying in the 180 kts range, on 9.5 gallons per hour. My e-mail is johnabreda@yahoo.com and my cell is (617) 877-0025. John Breda 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manoflamancha Posted April 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 19, 2014 Hi Tom, Sounds great. Will call you this weekend about your J for sale. If you have pics my email is master85@hotmail.com Thanks Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaronk25 Posted April 20, 2014 Report Share Posted April 20, 2014 Have you considerd a Rocket? Mine is up for sale. Search this site for: FS: 1986 252 M20K Rocket Hey David question for you I test flew a 79 231 Rocket that strategic aircraft had for sale in Willmar and was wondering if you have seen the same cruise numbers out of yours as I'm wondering if there was a error in the asi...... At 15k and 30" MP and 2200 rpm right at peak TIT 1620 Maybe 20LOP (can't remember exactly as the enormous smile on my face caused temporary amnesia) i saw 185kts at 12.8gph .....I did adjust it for temp and ...... Do you think this sounds correct? It seemed awfully fast for such a low fuel burn....if you think this is true a rocket can be ran very cost effectively. Obviously these birds screen as we were seeing 200kts when the fuel flow/rpm was increased but the efficiency is what I love.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manoflamancha Posted April 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 How did you tweak the engine to get such a low fuel burn in the Rocket? I love that model except for the poor fuel mileage unless there is a way to manage the fuel burn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtVandelay Posted April 22, 2014 Report Share Posted April 22, 2014 How did you tweak the engine to get such a low fuel burn in the Rocket? I love that model except for the poor fuel mileage unless there is a way to manage the fuel burn. With all due respect, I would take some of the stats quoted with a grain of salt, they are like fish stories ;-) Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manoflamancha Posted April 23, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 Right based on my limited knowledge of the Rocket, I thought average fuel burn was like 18-22 gph. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Mazer Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 Sorry for the delay in responding. The Rocket is very flexible but I've never seen 12.8 gph. I have run about 13.5 gph and 150s TAS and 18.2 and 180-190s at low altitudes. As for maintenance costs, annuals have been rediculously low in recent years (I think my last annual was $1,500) and insurance has been about $2,000/yr. The Rocket, and I assume the other turbo Mooneys, allow you to fly slow and cheap or high and fast (very fast). It has been a great airplane but it doesn't suit my current flying and it just doesn't make sense to keep her and not fly her the way she is meant to be flown. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaronk25 Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 Sorry for the delay in responding. The Rocket is very flexible but I've never seen 12.8 gph. I have run about 13.5 gph and 150s TAS and 18.2 and 180-190s at low altitudes. As for maintenance costs, annuals have been rediculously low in recent years (I think my last annual was $1,500) and insurance has been about $2,000/yr. The Rocket, and I assume the other turbo Mooneys, allow you to fly slow and cheap or high and fast (very fast). It has been a great airplane but it doesn't suit my current flying and it just doesn't make sense to keep her and not fly her the way she is meant to be flown. Thanks for the reply back. Tim Lundqust from stragetic aircraft was on board and it was a 231 rocket he was selling. Maybe the ASI was off as that's how I came up with the true airspeed. We didn't have time to run a 4 way gps average. We had some discussion as to wether or not the engine should be run in that configuration for a extended period of time, 30" 2200rpm peak tit at 1620 degrees, 12.8gph all at fl15k...... I'm not lying guys, but I could have been lied to by the instruments but geeze I would have guessed it would be off that much but then again I had ZERO time in this aircraft. David, the fuel burn numbers your talking about sound like they are all way ROP? Aaron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Mazer Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 First, there is a Continental SB advising not to run at 2200 RPM. I think it actually recommends 2300 as a minimum. Second, I would never run TIT of 1620. My TIT gauge shows 70 degrees low so 1620 for my airplane is 1690. Unless you are absolutely certain of your TIT gauge and checked it that flight, you are running on the very ragged edge. I usually lean to 1480 and that gives me a true TIT of 1550. That is the value Dar Conrad recommended. Third, I always run ROP. I have GAMI injectors but they aren't tuned right and my EGTs vary by about 100 degrees hottest to coolest. Fourth, and finally, my numbers were for low altitudes. Really low. Say, 1500 to 4500 ft. With altitude those TAS numbers go up significantly. Surprisingly to me, the fuel requirments also rise slightly with altitude. So if the fuel flow at low altitudes is 18.2, it will be 18.5 in the teens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob - S50 Posted April 23, 2014 Report Share Posted April 23, 2014 Third, I always run ROP. I have GAMI injectors but they aren't tuned right and my EGTs vary by about 100 degrees hottest to coolest. Minor point and a bit off thread, but the actual values of EGT's do not matter for LOP/ROP. What matters is how close they come to peaking at the same time and smooth engine operation. Actual EGT reading can vary for a number of reasons. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manoflamancha Posted April 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 Interesting. I'd prefer a 231 over the 201 for the turbo power over mountains as long as it has the waste gate and intercooler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
000 Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 Looking at Mooney 201 or 231. Ideally turbo charged for flying out west. Our '81 201 with fresh Annual has been reduced to $84,900. It's based in Colorado and there are no issues flying in and out of high altitude airports, despite being a normally-aspirated M20J. It has a 370-HOUR TRIAD Engine, New Prop, Nice 2004 P&I, Speed Brakes, Garmin 480 WAAS GPS, Century 21 A/P. WX-1000 SS, back up altimeter, 2nd horizon, dual glide slopes, King KX-155 nav/com, complete logs, and more! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Mazer Posted April 25, 2014 Report Share Posted April 25, 2014 Minor point and a bit off thread, but the actual values of EGT's do not matter for LOP/ROP. What matters is how close they come to peaking at the same time and smooth engine operation. Actual EGT reading can vary for a number of reasons. Bob I thought that was what I was saying. There is a 100 degree difference between cylinders EGT values. Too much for me to be comfortable with LOP. I'm sure with a small amount of effort, the injectors could be tuned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob - S50 Posted April 26, 2014 Report Share Posted April 26, 2014 I thought that was what I was saying. There is a 100 degree difference between cylinders EGT values. Too much for me to be comfortable with LOP. I'm sure with a small amount of effort, the injectors could be tuned. No, I'm pretty sure we are saying something different. I'm saying it does not matter what the actual EGT is on any of the cylinders. One may peak at 1350, another at 1450, another at 1320; it doesn't matter. The coolest may read 100 degrees lower than the hottest in cruise, it doesn't matter. What matters is how close to the same ... fuel flow ... they peak. If they all peak, for example at exactly 9.5 GPH with EGT's of 1320, 1350, 1450 and 1480, it is ... perfect ... and you should be good to go for LOP as long as the engine is still running smoothly. If they all peak at exactly 1450, but the first one happens at 10.5 GPH and the last one happens at 9.0 GPH, you will probably have a rough running engine when LOP and it won't work for you. You, of course have a turbo, I don't. I have not read a lot about LOP on turbos, but from what I remember, the main difference is that you need to watch your TIT as well as your CHT's. Bob 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manoflamancha Posted May 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 +1 Bob yeah more to worry about on cost to maintain and engine management which is why a good engine monitor is mandatory. I've decided to look for a 252 or Bravo based on the prices seen for well maintained 201 J Mooneys. Goal is my last airplane first. Buying an entry plane and selling later is a pain. -Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob - S50 Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 +1 Bob yeah more to worry about on cost to maintain and engine management which is why a good engine monitor is mandatory. I've decided to look for a 252 or Bravo based on the prices seen for well maintained 201 J Mooneys. Goal is my last airplane first. Buying an entry plane and selling later is a pain. -Scott Probably a good decision. You'll definitely save money in the long run if you end up spending a bunch of money on upgrades on each airplane you get before your last one. And like I tell my wife, better to spend a little more now and get what you want then to go on the cheap and end buying the good one later anyway because you hate the cheap one you got. Bob 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manoflamancha Posted May 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 21, 2014 Indeed what surprised me is that used early Bravos are selling for same as 252 Mooneys! So decided older Bravo, Rocket or Ovation may be just the right ticket for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTex Posted May 21, 2014 Report Share Posted May 21, 2014 Might want to give Jimmy Garrison a call at AAA and he'll explain why Bravo's are at the price point you're seeing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manoflamancha Posted May 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 21, 2014 Thanks I'll give him a call about Bravos and Rockets. Out here on west coast, a turbo is useful for safely crossing the mountains. Otherwise I'd just get a 201J or Ovation. -Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted May 21, 2014 Report Share Posted May 21, 2014 A call to David and Jimmy may give you the details you want to here... Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.