Jump to content


Photo

Mooney 201 vs 201 MSE


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 ChristianGodin

ChristianGodin

    Full Member

  • Members
  • 102 posts
  • LocationMontreal, Quebec
  • Model:M20J

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
  • 2,137 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

#3 N4352H

N4352H

    Won't Leave!

  • Members
  • 1,993 posts

Posted 25 February 2013 - 03:05 PM

Gross weight increase, landing gear.



#4 bluehighwayflyer

bluehighwayflyer

    Won't Leave!

  • Members
  • 3,547 posts
  • LocationUSA
  • Model:'78 M20J

Posted 25 February 2013 - 03:20 PM

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

Thanks,

Jim
Jim R.

#5 smccray

smccray

    Lives Here

  • Members
  • 314 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

 


#6 bluehighwayflyer

bluehighwayflyer

    Won't Leave!

  • Members
  • 3,547 posts
  • LocationUSA
  • Model:'78 M20J

Posted 25 February 2013 - 05:08 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
Jim R.

#7 KSMooniac

KSMooniac

    Won't Leave!

  • Members
  • 3,783 posts
  • LocationWichita, KS
  • Reg #:N11MH
  • 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!)

#8 fantom

fantom

    Gary in SoFL @ KHWO

  • Members
  • 3,854 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!


  • alex and Cris like this

#9 smccray

smccray

    Lives Here

  • Members
  • 314 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

 


#10 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

#11 smccray

smccray

    Lives Here

  • Members
  • 314 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

 


#12 PTK

PTK

    Won't Leave!

  • Members
  • 2,137 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.

#13 laytonl

laytonl

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 268 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

#14 fantom

fantom

    Gary in SoFL @ KHWO

  • Members
  • 3,854 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



#15 bluehighwayflyer

bluehighwayflyer

    Won't Leave!

  • Members
  • 3,547 posts
  • LocationUSA
  • Model:'78 M20J

Posted 26 February 2013 - 01:01 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

That is because your MSE has a 160 pound higher gross weight, and a 180 pound higher empty weight. No one will argue that lugging the equivalent of an extra passenger around all of the time is a good thing. The pre-gross weight increase 201s are the ones that suffer from low useful loads. Not the MSEs.

Personally I find many of the later J model "improvements" not to be, but opinions vary. I am very admittedly a minimalist, and I chose my '78 model accordingly. Isn't it nice, though, that there is a J model for every taste?

Jim
  • PTK likes this
Jim R.

#16 alex

alex

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 207 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.



#17 fantom

fantom

    Gary in SoFL @ KHWO

  • Members
  • 3,854 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

#18 aaronk25

aaronk25

    Won't Leave!

  • Members
  • 1,021 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.

#19 PTK

PTK

    Won't Leave!

  • Members
  • 2,137 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.


  • Cris likes this

#20 Cris

Cris

    Won't Leave!

  • Members
  • 529 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 3 others like this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users