Jump to content


Photo

Mooney 201 vs 201 MSE


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#1 ChristianGodin

ChristianGodin

    Full Member

  • Members
  • 106 posts
  • LocationMontreal, Quebec
  • Model:M20

Posted 25 February 2013 - 10:46 AM

Does anyone can tell me the difference between the 201 and the 201 MSE.
Thank You

#2 PTK

PTK

    Won't Leave!

  • Members
  • 2,776 posts
  • LocationNJ
  • Reg #:N910BU
  • Model:M20J

Posted 25 February 2013 - 11:57 AM

Christian, here is a link highlighting the evolution of the venerable M20J. In its core, it is basically the same airplane with some minor peripheral changes over the years.

http://www.mooneyeve...com/201hist.xls
Peter, Cherry Hill, NJ
Sent from my iPhone 6 using 100% recycled electrons!

#3 N4352H

N4352H

    Won't Leave!

  • Members
  • 2,562 posts

Posted 25 February 2013 - 03:05 PM

Gross weight increase, landing gear.



#4 smccray

smccray

    Lives Here

  • Members
  • 338 posts
  • LocationDallas, TX KADS
  • Reg #:N205MH
  • Model:M20J 205

Posted 25 February 2013 - 04:50 PM

What is different about the MSE's landing gear, John? First I've heard of this.

Thanks,

Jim

 

My understanding is that the landing gear is a little stronger leading the 2900 gross weight vs. the 2740 on your J.  The MSEs came from the factory with the 2900 GWl, and some earlier models were authorized for a GW increase based on a letter from the factory.  I did the GW increase in my '87, and I believe there were a few Js produced prior to my plane eligible for the increase, but not many.

 

 

Christian, here is a link highlighting the evolution of the venerable M20J. In its core, it is basically the same airplane with some minor peripheral changes over the years.

http://www.mooneyeve...com/201hist.xls

 

Interesting that the spreadsheet says that electric cowl flaps weren't on the '87 205.  My plane has electric cowl flaps and my serial number is in the middle of that range.  The only significant difference between my 205 that I'm aware of is the ram air, which if it broke I would remove the mechanism.


Scott

 


#5 KSMooniac

KSMooniac

    Won't Leave!

  • Members
  • 4,282 posts
  • LocationWichita, KS
  • Model:M20J

Posted 25 February 2013 - 05:33 PM

I too heard it was just a stronger tube in the cage structure and not the gear...otherwise I'd be looking for some later model gear for a swap and GWI!  As it stands now, replacing a cage tube in situ is too much of a PITA.


Scott
Wichita, KS (though I'm a displaced Texan!)

#6 fantom

fantom

    Gary in SoFL @ KHWO

  • Members
  • 4,225 posts
  • LocationDavie, Florida
  • Reg #:N49GH
  • Model:'94 MSE 'J'

Posted 25 February 2013 - 06:28 PM

[quote name='allsmiles' timestamp='1361793444' post='91614']Christian, here is a link highlighting the evolution of the venerable M20J. In its core, it is basically the same airplane with some minor peripheral changes over the years.http://www.mooneyeve...hist.xls[/quote

 

While it looks like the same plane, the are many, more than 'peripheral' changes for the better. When you read a self-serving statement like the one above, always do your own investigation. Also check the model that the person making the claim owns. ;) Funny how lots of people spends tens of thousands to modernize their birds.

 

Buy the newest, best conditioned, airplane you can afford. Like women, they're all different.

 

Inner gear doors, wing tips, rounded windows, 28v electrical system, electrical cowl flaps, much better interiors, newer avionics, upgraded soundproofing, one piece belly panel, improved corrosion proofing....the list is long, and far from 'minor'. Mooney made incremental changes throughout the M20J run.

 

Good luck!


  • WardHolbrook, alex and Cris like this

#7 smccray

smccray

    Lives Here

  • Members
  • 338 posts
  • LocationDallas, TX KADS
  • Reg #:N205MH
  • Model:M20J 205

Posted 25 February 2013 - 07:59 PM

All true, Scott, but I had been under the impression that the structure beef up that you are referring to was in the roll cage and not the landing gear. I believe the landing gear on our two birds to be identical, but I could be wrong about that.

Jim

 

 

I too heard it was just a stronger tube in the cage structure and not the gear...otherwise I'd be looking for some later model gear for a swap and GWI!  As it stands now, replacing a cage tube in situ is too much of a PITA.

 

I thought it was a change to the gear, but that's 2 against 1.  I'm revising my answer and going with cage tube.


Scott

 


#8 RJBrown

RJBrown

    Won't Leave!

  • Members
  • 792 posts
  • LocationGet out a Denver better GO GO
  • Reg #:N0THIN
  • Model:Any Rocket, please

Posted 25 February 2013 - 08:07 PM

MSE is also 28 volt instead of 14 volt. Taxi and landing lights in wings not cowl. better equipped, most had HSI. No siamesed magneto. White panel. a lot of small things but over all better. electric cowl flaps.


  • M016576 likes this

#9 smccray

smccray

    Lives Here

  • Members
  • 338 posts
  • LocationDallas, TX KADS
  • Reg #:N205MH
  • Model:M20J 205

Posted 25 February 2013 - 09:19 PM

MSE is also 28 volt instead of 14 volt. Taxi and landing lights in wings not cowl. better equipped, most had HSI. No siamesed magneto. White panel. a lot of small things but over all better. electric cowl flaps.

 

What version of the IO360 do you have in your plane?  A prior owner upgraded the A3B6D in my plane to an A3B6 swapping out the dual mag to 2 separate slick mags.  Is it the same A3B6 conversion that is talked about around here?

 

Landing light moved to the wing- I forgot about that change.  I certainly would have liked that on my plane.  The rest of those upgrades came in '87 with the 205 model.


Scott

 


#10 PTK

PTK

    Won't Leave!

  • Members
  • 2,776 posts
  • LocationNJ
  • Reg #:N910BU
  • Model:M20J

Posted 25 February 2013 - 11:55 PM

As I said, in its core its the same airplane with some peripheral changes over the years.
The gentleman from Davie, FL must be hallucinating when he talks about self serving statements! What he conveniently neglected to mention is useful load. Inner gear doors, 28V system, electric cowl flaps, and one piece belly panel are, arguably, unnecessary and add weight. You will find that the best useful loads are found in earlier 201's. All these peripheral changes over the years came with weight penalties to the same core airplane! Wingtips are on all J's from 1980 forward iirc. Also avionics is very subjective and not always as he states.
Peter, Cherry Hill, NJ
Sent from my iPhone 6 using 100% recycled electrons!

#11 laytonl

laytonl

    Lives Here

  • Members
  • 333 posts
  • Reg #:N918TH
  • Model:M20J

Posted 26 February 2013 - 12:39 AM

useful hasn't changed much.  I have a '78 M20J (for sale, by the way) and a '92 MSE and the useful load on the MSE is only about 20 lbs less than the '78.  Some of the difference in these two aircraft is the result of a lightweight starter in the '78, etc.   Lee


Lee Layton, PE
ATP
N918TH

#12 fantom

fantom

    Gary in SoFL @ KHWO

  • Members
  • 4,225 posts
  • LocationDavie, Florida
  • Reg #:N49GH
  • Model:'94 MSE 'J'

Posted 26 February 2013 - 12:50 AM

...some peripheral changes over the years.
What he conveniently neglected to mention is useful load.....

 

ROTFLMAO.....what a hoot. Seems everything 'smiles posts is preparing to sell his older airframe.

 

Useful load is about the same, since newer J's have 160 pounds more of it, all other none peripheral items being equal. :P



#13 alex

alex

    Lives Here

  • Members
  • 334 posts
  • LocationSchaumburg, IL
  • Reg #:N9113J
  • Model:M20J MSE

Posted 26 February 2013 - 02:07 AM

One piece belly panel...unnecessary, Really? Changing square windows to the round newer type is unnecessary.



#14 fantom

fantom

    Gary in SoFL @ KHWO

  • Members
  • 4,225 posts
  • LocationDavie, Florida
  • Reg #:N49GH
  • Model:'94 MSE 'J'

Posted 26 February 2013 - 03:42 AM

Me too...that's why I don't fly a Bravo. ;)

....I am very admittedly a minimalist..... Isn't it nice, though, that there is a J model for every taste?

 


  • bluehighwayflyer and M016576 like this

#15 aaronk25

aaronk25

    Won't Leave!

  • Members
  • 1,319 posts
  • LocationRochester, MN
  • Reg #:N201AD
  • Model:m20j

Posted 26 February 2013 - 05:06 AM

I fly my 77 j at 2900 gross weight, but technically not legal. However I try to use common sense in my decision making and with 25 degrees of timing on the early J compared to the 20 degres on the newer ones, the older ones have at least same but most likley more power.

1.120 usable at the 2900lbs.

#16 PTK

PTK

    Won't Leave!

  • Members
  • 2,776 posts
  • LocationNJ
  • Reg #:N910BU
  • Model:M20J

Posted 26 February 2013 - 03:33 PM

I fly my 77 j at 2900 gross weight, but technically not legal. However I try to use common sense in my decision making and with 25 degrees of timing on the early J compared to the 20 degres on the newer ones, the older ones have at least same but most likley more power.

1.120 usable at the 2900lbs.

The problem I have with operating over gross is not that the airplane will suddenly turn into a pile of aluminum. Sure components and things like gear biscuits, fuel tank sealer etc. become stressed and it all adds up, but the airplane will perform. Look at the Missiles at a whopping 3200 pounds. I wouldn't want one but with the exception of increased incidence of nose gear cracks they do ok. The problem I have is that once you place the airplane outside its envelope you enter the unknown. All those performance numbers in the POH suddenly become meaningless and you've just become a cheap test pilot. (see N9154K.)

The other thing of course is liability. Say you operate overweight a hundred times but on the one hundred and first, something really really bad and unspeakable happens. You put it down in a school playground on top of some school kids or something. Even if the reason has nothing to do with being over gross the insurance co may turn around and say "Mr. so and so, we are sorry but we did not insure an experimental category aircraft." They haven't done it yet but very well could.

You have to ask yourself, is it really worth it?! With some careful planning I bet you'll find that you don't have to do that.


  • WardHolbrook and Cris like this
Peter, Cherry Hill, NJ
Sent from my iPhone 6 using 100% recycled electrons!

#17 Cris

Cris

    Won't Leave!

  • Members
  • 556 posts
  • LocationBrigantine, NJ
  • Reg #:N20098
  • Model:M20S Screamin' Eagle ATP, CFII, AGI

Posted 26 February 2013 - 04:52 PM

 

I fly my 77 j at 2900 gross weight, but technically not legal. However I try to use common sense in my decision making and with 25 degrees of timing on the early J compared to the 20 degres on the newer ones, the older ones have at least same but most likley more power.

1.120 usable at the 2900lbs.


 Really? Why not just send this off to the FAA so they can do a ramp check next time they see your N number. Just maybe we might have one less statistic. What you are doing is flat out wrong and smacks of very poor judgement. Sorry but this is an area that really should not be advertised on this forum as acceptable behavior. Next I'd wonder if you were equally comfortable in trying to take off overweight over a 50' object using the standard POH figures. Seems we had a death last year on this forum (who took several innocents with him) with someone trying to do just what you are subscribing to as acceptable. Knock it off!!!
  • bluehighwayflyer, KSMooniac, fantom and 4 others like this

#18 aaronk25

aaronk25

    Won't Leave!

  • Members
  • 1,319 posts
  • LocationRochester, MN
  • Reg #:N201AD
  • Model:m20j

Posted 26 February 2013 - 07:01 PM

The problem I have with operating over gross is not that the airplane will suddenly turn into a pile of aluminum. Sure components and things like gear biscuits, fuel tank sealer etc. become stressed and it all adds up, but the airplane will perform. Look at the Missiles at a whopping 3200 pounds. I wouldn't want one but with the exception of increased incidence of nose gear cracks they do ok. The problem I have is that once you place the airplane outside its envelope you enter the unknown. All those performance numbers in the POH suddenly become meaningless and you've just become a cheap test pilot. (see N9154K.)

The other thing of course is liability. Say you operate overweight a hundred times but on the one hundred and first, something really really bad and unspeakable happens. You put it down in a school playground on top of some school kids or something. Even if the reason has nothing to do with being over gross the insurance co may turn around and say "Mr. so and so, we are sorry but we did not insure an experimental category aircraft." They haven't done it yet but very well could.

You have to ask yourself, is it really worth it?! With some careful planning I bet you'll find that you don't have to do that.

Allsmiles,

 

I hear you and appreciate the way you covered the issue.  Worth it no, probably not because if there was a incident there would be alot of explaining to do.  I also wouldn't like to be in a position that makes insurance coverage anything less than Guaranteed.  I do think that if there was a incident that the policy would be in effect regardless as insurance is to cover the negligence of the pilot also.  If your driving 70 in a 55Mph zone and crash and the cause was excessive speed, the insurance policy would still be valid   I think it would be a tough sell to a jury for the insurance company to make a case to not cover the claim.  If it was a situation where it was a commercial operation and only possessed a non-commercial coverage, I bet that would get the insurance company off the hook.  But as you said its probably not worth it.  Thanks for your constructive impute.     

 

 
 Really? Why not just send this off to the FAA so they can do a ramp check next time they see your N number. Just maybe we might have one less statistic. What you are doing is flat out wrong and smacks of very poor judgement. Sorry but this is an area that really should not be advertised on this forum as acceptable behavior. Next I'd wonder if you were equally comfortable in trying to take off overweight over a 50' object using the standard POH figures. Seems we had a death last year on this forum (who took several innocents with him) with someone trying to do just what you are subscribing to as acceptable. Knock it off!!!

Chris,

As for you, I certainly think your rant is a bit numerous especially coming from a industry pro.  The FAA can come ramp check me anytime they want.  I just went though one, and if I'm over weight then I'll suffer the consequences and won't ask you to pay the fine or deal with whatever comes, does that sound fair?

 

There are so many areas of judgment that come into flying that aren't illegal but are down right dangerous that were allowed as pilots to use wise judgment.  The only reason our early m20Js dont have a stc available is because it would cost and excessive sum of money to create the stc to bring previous "J"s upto the higher gross weight which would only be a change of airspeed indicator,a slight revision to the data in the POH and a weight in the elevator.   

 

I also don't put myself in situations where I need to cut it that close where the 50' obstacle clearance data would be needed.  I don't cut it that close and if I do push the published 2,740 number I start looking at a variety of factors and exponentially increase runway length obstetrical clearance, DA ect.  I fly this bird 250-300 hours a year and have never put myself in a position that didn't have what I would consider acceptable margins.  

 

Every pilot chooses how to operate his or her aircraft and has to be prepared to deal with any consequences resulting from such operation.  I have evaluated mine and in no way telling any one else how to operate there aircraft with relation to gross or over gross weight.  

 

I think you should choose more wisely about what events you try to tie together.  I don't remember asking you to judge anyway.  



#19 KSMooniac

KSMooniac

    Won't Leave!

  • Members
  • 4,282 posts
  • LocationWichita, KS
  • Model:M20J

Posted 26 February 2013 - 07:04 PM

There is a structural change with at least one steel tube in the cage to enable the higher gross weight.  It is most certainly NOT just a paperwork exercise.


Scott
Wichita, KS (though I'm a displaced Texan!)

#20 aaronk25

aaronk25

    Won't Leave!

  • Members
  • 1,319 posts
  • LocationRochester, MN
  • Reg #:N201AD
  • Model:m20j

Posted 26 February 2013 - 07:32 PM

There is a structural change with at least one steel tube in the cage to enable the higher gross weight.  It is most certainly NOT just a paperwork exercise.

I was told it was to standardize the mooney fleet (but I don't know for sure) so they only had to build one chassis instead of 2 as the thicker tube thickness is to support the heavier engines upfront.  Even though the J's don't require the heavier tubes, it was cheaper to build them all the same.

 

That gets me thinking thought the missile conversion has a 3200lbs gross weight and has the "thinner" tubes.....I believe.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users