Cris

Quote: aviatoreb My Mooney had a "sky phone" in the 1980s. I bet that was the cat's meow back then! It is there in the book of STCs that came with the logs. The phone is long gone though. Someone really loved this Mooney in the 80s and 90s as that book of STCs filed is pretty thick.

Yeaa

Yeaa but then I gots to get my fat belly under the plane to keep it nice & clean. If it were just oil it would be faster but all that dirt & grime ie parasitic drag really slows me down. let's see 2 knots x's x hrs divided by gph x's cost of fuel. Yikes I could just pay for the separator in a what 3-4 years!!

Give us a pirep when it is complete. I understand that the M20 (according to Aviation Consumer) needs to be installed very carefully since it uses gravity to drain the oil back into the crankcase. That was the one I was leaning towards so I will be interested in your update.

Try negotiating with Midwest. They may well be willing to adjust based on market conditions and they are good folks.

Quote: jlunseth Cris the advertised top speed is not sea level WOT. It is whatever configuration and altitude gives the maximum speed of the aircraft within its service envelope. In the case of normallly aspirated aircraft like the 201, that is going to happen long before the aircraft reaches its service ceiling, because of diminishing horsepower. In my experience, the 231 is in fact slightly slower than the 201 below about 8,000 feet. After that the 231 pulls away, primarily because it is still making 100%HP. Don't know what this tells you as far as a purchase decision is concerned, except maybe that the turbo's are at their best for flights of over an hour, where the climb to cruising altitude to achieve the speed advantage of the turbo, is justified. Then again, the air is nice and smooth once you get there, and you have the place all to yourself.

So may I assume that we are all agreeded that the numbers for stall speed, range etc as I posted are reasonably accurate & based on the POH for both the 201 & 231. If so it simply means the 201 will land & take off in a much shorter distance than the 231 which was my original contention & a real driver for me to switch back. In the end I found that the 201 carried more, flew faster at the lower altitudes I typically flew & cost less to operate. The 231 had more stuff to maintain since the 231's typically were better equiped than their 201 counterparts. Things like a radar altimeter that never did seem to work but $'s to repair & extra cylinders to feed as well as increased annual expenses for what ever reasons I do not know. In the end it was a better fit for the missions that I typically flew. But if I were needing to fly high....

Simply put it really boils down to a turbo decision. If one is in your future it is probably more cost effective to sell your J & buy a 231/252. Installing a turbo normalizer kit on a J is 32 K from the aftermarket folks plus installation. Since you are buying new you are unlikely to recoupe the purchase price at resale. There is of course a value to keeping what you know but the devil is in the details. Currently the J & K models are close in aquisition costs so the $ differance is in the maintenace & somewhat higher fuel flows. That has been adequately discussed elsewhere as to wheather or not it really costs more to run a turbo. So do a search on that topic which should help your decision process.

I agree with your point about cruise speed propaganda but I was not referencing them in my original post only the top end speed arrived at I believe at sea level wot. However my 84' 201 would consistently do 162-164 knots indicated but it was generally well under gross but also unusually fast. I think the latter 201's ie 205 models did add a few knots to the cruise speeds but 170? I don't think so. Gary, What does yours do at 75% best power on a standard day/temp??

Hmmm Like you, I used to be 6'4" until I had employees. Now I am maybe 5'8" after employes but that gives me a ton of room in the Eagle! LOL. But really at 11K & 2500-2550 LOP I will be at 330-340 CHT. I need to do a better job of keeping the A/S higher on T/O to keep the CHT's lower. I just put the GEM 610 into the plane at last weeks annual so I have not even had a test flight. I'll let you know in a month or so. Although 11K is a good altitude you are giving up speed since you can not get 75% power above about 9K. I do go there but only if the winds are being helpful or if I want to get above some cumulous for a smoother ride. Mostly I fly in the 8-9K arena since most of my flying is in the east. I had given brief consideration to the Stec 55X upgrade special which I do not need (nice to have) and in the end decided that I really wanted an upgraded paint job which I just got.

Quote: fantom We know, we know Those numbers, which I've seen before, aren't even in the ballpark. In your quest for something more accurate, you could start with some excellent articles by Bill Kromer, former Mooney test pilot and President. http://www.mooneypilots.com/

Quote: Parker_Woodruff The range terribly wrong on the M20J. The stall speeds are not necessarily correct. According to the data shown there, they are all based on entirely different sets of atmospheric conditions.

I also agree that the max cruise speed for the 231 seems high as I only flight plan for a 190 Kts but at 8000'. I think the way Mooney got that number was the same way as they got the 201 number- flat out at sea level which generated max horsepower. Obviously no one really flies that way. In my case I was not really commenting on cruise but rather on the landing over 50' & the roll out which I guarantee you is much greater in the 231 than in a 201. The 231 is a substantially heavier A/C than the 201 & requires longer distances to stop. I don't think the early 231 had upgraded brakes like the long bodies. Also the stall speed is higher in the 231 so it lands faster again taking longer to come to a stop. It is one of the reasons that I went back to a 201 which is what Panther1400 asked.

These numbers came from www.pilotfriend.com. Keep in mind that differant year K & J models do vary somewhat. If memory serves me right these are probably indicative of early models for both & are representative of my 78/79/81/84 201's & my 82 231K. What do you have that is differant?

Yes, I purchased the A/C with the Ameri-King Model AK-451-2. It is located in the tail cone. Not sure where the antenna is mounted but I think it is also on the dorsal fin-thin black wire antenna 15" or so. Are you referring to power settings for a 110 Kt airspeed? If so at T/O I am using 2700 RPM with about 27 inches of manifold pressure & 27.8 GPH at sea level 30.00. That will push my CHT to close to 420 F on a hot 90 degree day so I throttle back to 25/25 after the first 1500' to keep it at or below 400 F in the climb. I adjust A/S based on CHT and keep the fuel flow at max if required in the climb to keep the CHT's lower. I really have not owned it long enough to get these numbers correct. I just installed a GEM 610 so I will get some better info as time goes on. Was the autopilot original equip or was it added? I imagine the Aspen quite nice. I'm still working with & comfortable with the old 6 pack. What is your max fuel capacity?

So I installed the Battery Minder only to find out it was DOA. Called the mfg who said they would repair it but seems to me they should have just offered to ship me a new one. I also had to pay for shipping.

Duplicate

We're pretty much off the battery thread so I'll start & answer on an "Eagle" thread

Quote: panther1400 Does anyone have personal experience of why they chose to go back to a 201 after a 231, or maybe they are very happy they switched to a 231 ....

Quote: allsmiles Congratulations! What took you so long! The J is THE airplane to own!

I had several 201's prior to purchasing a very well equipped 231. I flew out of a small airport (N07 Lincoln Park NJ) with trees at one end. The 231 takes longer to land & takeoff together with all the caveats as well as benefits mentioned above. I also hated the fact that I'd be down but had to wait 5-10 mins for the turbo to cool down so as not to cook the bearings. Same on T/O (warmup) but not a problem at a great big airport BTW. Although I never had an issue landing (except for a few twigs in the gear from a night landing) I was never really comfortable coming over the trees & trying to stop before the fence at the other end of the runway. Most trips were west/east & I found that going west I always flew low to avoid the winds so I could not use the turbo efficiently but I was still paying the usefull load & maintenance penalty. East bound although faster I had to use O2 so I ended up flying at 11K unless the winds were really stong above giving me great ground speed. I never flew higher than 18K mostly due to mag issues the A/C seemed to have. After a while I gave up & went back to a 201. As many have said it depends on the mission & today I fly an Screamin' Eagle which has long legs, high useful load,speed, easy maintenance & fits the mission perfectly-for me.

For me, it is a terrific A/C for all the right reasons. Like many I spent about a year or so looking at various Mooney J's. I've owned turbo's & found that I rarely used the capability but payed the penalty in terms of longer T/O & reduced useful load not to mention that there was more "stuff" to maintain like the high end autopilots vs the Eagle's Stec 30 which translated to $'s. The downside to the Eagle like the turbo & Ovation is the longer T/O distances & reduced climb rates. However I was discouraged by the J A/C I found in the market & knew nothing about the Screamin' Eagle M20S version until this A/C was presented. After research, it cured my concerns about performance while at the same time minimizing the "stuff" I'd need to maintain which is a real driver for me. The fact that the long bodies are all that the factory produced in the end also entered into my decision. This particular A/C only had 330 hrs TT & had for me very good upgraded equipment ie GMX200 & GDL 69 with backup alt/vacume & leather interior. The downside was that although hangered, it really had not been flown but having just come out of annual without issues including the updating of all SB's & Ad's, I am a very happy camper. Many folks ignore the Eagle which makes them a very good value in todays market especially so if you can find one with the 310 HP STC. This STC also increases the gross weight including 95 gals of fuel to 3368 same as the Ovation & my useful load is 1122 lbs. The typical Eagle is lighter than the Ovation due to soundproofing & equipment so the useful laods are better. Thus you get the performance of the Ovation 3 with the acquisition cost of a late model J at a discount over an Ovation. You probably know that the Eagle & Ovation are the identicle airframe & engine combo but derated in the Eagle. Check with Dockett for his thoughts on his Screamin' Eagle which is "really" well equipped or PM me if you want additional info.

Have not been therein a couple of years but used Galvin Fliying Services which was a Mooney Dealer & still maintains quite a few of them.

Have not been therein a couple of years but used Galvin Fliying Services which was a Mooney Dealer & still maintains quite a few of them.

If you elect to use ANR's it really is best to try them side by side or with a 30 day plan. In my case I tried the Zulu against the Bose A20 & found for me the A20 was the absolute best headset I had ever used! More to the point is that I think it was the best piece of aviation equipment I might have ever purchased. I never could get comfortable with the David Clarks so I expected to be disappointed but I was'nt & will not give them up. So you will read elsewhere that someone like theirs better which is why headsets are really personal decisions & you need to try before you buy.