What's the deal with the Cont. GB?

[Sable1]

OK, once again I'll show my ignorance, and if I start to drive you guys nuts, just tell me to go away (or go back to lurking).

I've started looking for a Mooney last spring.  Flew a 201 and a 231, and really started leaning toward the 231.  During the process I was told on several occasions to avoid the planes with the GB motor.  I was told they have more issues, less reliable, blah, blah, blah.  But the big deal I was lead to believe is that when it's up for overhaul, it would need to be replaced or upgraded to an LB (obviously not inexpensive).  The broker I've talked to about a few planes basically said to avoid a GB at all costs.

I know several of you here have GB's and from what I've read, they don't seem to be any more troublesome than the LB, MB, Lyc's etc...  Obviously care and maintenance plays into that as well.

And here's the real kicker.  I came across a 231 that has recently had thier GB overhauled - which I did not think was an option.

So have I been mis-informed?  SHOULD I be considering a GB?  (The thought of shelling out another $50k+ in a few years is not appealing, so I'd like to do whatever I can to minimize that possibility.) 

Thanks again for the insight.

 

Tedd

[orionflt]

Pulled from MAPA:

Early -GB Engine Problems

The original 210 horsepower Continental TSIO-360-GB engine ran hot, both in climb and cruise. Extremely high temperatures are hard on cylinders and the -GB did experience premature cylinder replacements. The engine also had a fixed wastegate in the exhaust system, meaning careful pilot technique was required to keep from over boosting the engine on takeoff. If the pilot inadvertently added full throttle for takeoff or a go-around, the engine would over boost, with only a mechanical pop-off valve in the induction system to save the engine from literally coming apart on the runway. Fixed wastegates also mean high turbocharger speeds (RPM) at altitude, which reduces turbocharger life.

Compared to the absolutely bulletproof Lycoming IO-360 engine installed in the M20J, the TSIO-360-GB engine in the M20K got a bad reputation. The engine did run too hot (shame on Mooney's flight test department during those days). But added maintenance costs are just a fact of life with a turbocharged engine compared to a normally aspirated one.

The TSIO-360-LB is a Big Improvement

My very first job in 1983 as Mooney's newly hired engineering test pilot was to certify the 1984 model changes to the M20K. These changes included the installation of a newer variant of the TSIO-360 engine, the -LB, which replaced the -GB. The changes between the two engines were minor, but one of those minor changes proved to be a major improvement in engine life and longevity. The throttle body on the -LB engine was a larger diameter than the one on the -GB. This allowed more induction air into the cylinders, which helped to cool the engine. In flight testing the -LB, we found a decrease of approximately 20 degree F on the cylinder and the oil temperature with the -LB installation. This was huge.

Continental recognized the improvement, so much so that any -GB engine that goes to the TCM factory for an overhaul gets changed to the -LB configuration automatically and the engine's data plate gets changed to reflect the upgraded -LB configuration. If you're shopping for a 231, look closely at the engine's data plate. If it says TSIO-360-LB, great. If it says TSIO-360-GB, you've got an original hot running engine that will simply give you more trouble. Move on to another one with the -LB engine.

[FAST FLIGHT OPTIONS LLC]

The GB in my 231 is about 400 away from TBO. It gets regular use and I have an engine monitor. I don't have an inter cooler nor do I have an automatic watergate. Never had any top work done and the engine runs cool even in the dead of a South Florida summer if you fly it right. The engine will run hotter then an LB, MB, or SB. That doesn't mean it isn't manageable. I always wondered if the guy who wrote the article annotated above tried flying LoP.

[Dave Marten]

I have 400 hrs behind a GB in the desert southwest. While my flying environment definitely has a heat problem my engine does not. Talk to the folks who fly behind 'em and the MSCs who maintain them. While most have the intercooler and auto wastegate there are many stock 231s doing just fine (Nick above is such an example).

[NotarPilot]

Tedd, have you asked yourself why you think you need the turbocharger over a normally aspirated engine? I see you're in MN so not much need to climb above mountains in that area of the country unless you're trying to fly above weather or plan on flying out west much.

[ArtVandelay]

Tedd, have you asked yourself why you think you need the turbocharger over a normally aspirated engine? I see you're in MN so not much need to climb above mountains in that area of the country unless you're trying to fly above weather or plan on flying out west much.

It's funny you say that, here in Florida you will see lots of 231s for sale, but not many 201s

[FAST FLIGHT OPTIONS LLC]

Some may associate a turbo charged engine with climbing over mountains but for me it's climbing above bad weather...in Florida

[Sable1]

Thanks to everyone for their thoughts so far.  I have wondered if the GB is just less forgiving of being mismanaged (like most things in aviation), and that with the proper instruction - along with the right tools (i.e. engine monitor), they work just fine.  Unfortunately I have found that there are a lot of knuckleheads flying planes that really should not be, and that begs the question of how the plane was taken care of.  One recommendation I had was to find something with a timed out motor and pay for the OH myself.  While that does have some merit, I think it would be hard to find the right plane that way.  Putting $50k into a plane right off the bat does not seem like it would be financially a good idea.  Unless of course the purchase price was low enough - but then the motor would not be the only thing needing work.

As for the desire for a turbo (and it's certainly more want than need), I have gone back and forth over that several times. A 201 would really fit 90% of my flying, and I'm sure I would be happy with a non-turbo.  When I started looking, and to some extent still today, the price difference between the 201's and 231's is really not that much.  For roughly the same money, the turbo has some nice advantages - mainly as Nick stated, climbing above the weather.  Of course without FIKI, that's a bit more problematic in the winter, but still.  Maybe it's a poor analogy, but I look at it like having 4WD.  I don't need it all that often, but when you need it - you need it.  Plus, the 231's just look cooler.  (I always thought the cowl on the 201 looked like it was too short)

Tedd

[ArtVandelay]

  When I started looking, and to some extent still today, the price difference between the 201's and 231's is really not that much.  For roughly the same money, the turbo has some nice advantages - mainly as Nick stated, climbing above the weather.

The 6 cyl turbo is more expensive to maintain

This is typical Fl weather:

FL OMN-PBI..BKN030 BKN050 TOP FL280. VIS 4SM SCT -SHRA BR/WDLY
SCT -TSRA. CB TOP FL420. OTLK...VFR SHRA TSRA

You'll have trouble flying above that.  That said, if the costs don't bother you, turbo gives you options.

[triple8s]

I flew a C model for 5 yrs and my friend flew a 231 w/GB for a lawyer. The 231 parked beside me for about 5 years and I have even received dual in it as the friend is a CFII and I received a few hours in the 231. He had very little trouble with the GB, however, the friend has thousands of hours in cessna turbo sky masters which have similar engines with very similar problems and he became very good at managing the hot running turbocharged TCM. He is very mindful of the engine and keeping it happy. So it is my opine that if managed properly the GB can get to TBO however in his words, the way the engine is set up it cannot give its full potential with sacrificing longevity.

I have since moved on to another airplane and another CFI and the lawyer passed away so I don't see the friend much anymore. The lawyer passed away and the 231 was pushed out on tie down about two years ago although recently it was ferried up to a shop so it can be annualled and placed up for sale. Might be a good plane but the avionics are old, I believe the tail is 234JP. It's located at kdkx

[jlunseth]

It is true that you cannot overtop the largest buildups, even the jets cannot do that.  However, most of the time in the summer there is going to be a layer with tops to somewhere between 10 and 16, and the large cumulonimbus that extend above that are isolated.  The tops will be reported as high, but in reality you will have a lot of space to fly in. You get a great view of the Tstorms at 16k, and can skirt them.  There are a few occasions when that won't work, for example when a large convective front is moving through.  With xm on the panel to tell where the Tstorms are, and the ability to "see and avoid" the big storms when above the "popcorn cumulus" layer, I probably would fly in that.  There are times, on a really convective day, when you will have layers all the way up into the flight levels.  XM+Mark I eyeball+turbo=a pretty good combination.

 

I am in Minneapolis (KFCM).  If you want to go up sometime in my 231 and see how all this works, just PM me.  Might not be able to get up very high because winter is here (duh) and icing is an issue, but you can see how the engine operates and the controls work if you want.

[Marauder]

I think one other factor you should be evaluating closely is your intended mission. To take advantage of the higher altitudes, your destinations should be some distance away. It won't be a very economical plane if you spend most of your time flying short, low altitude flights. That is why I own an F. I can't tell you the number of owners I have met where they bought more plane than they need. Probably the same people who buy 5 ton air conditioners for 3 ton homes...

[larryb]

I bought my J model 2 years ago. And I fly in the mountains of CA. While I certainly would not have minded having a turbo climbing out of Truckee on a warm summer day, I can honestly say that so far, there has not been a single flight that I could not complete in my J that I could have completed in a turbo.

 

Now, I have not flown in a turbo Mooney either, so I don't really know what I'm missing.

 

Larry

[DonMuncy]

As I see it, there are 3 reasons for a turbo. None of them are "have tos", but nice to have.

You can take better advantage of winds aloft.

You can take advantage of higher terrain routes.

You can deal with weather much better. It is terribly consoling to get to 16,000, see the weather and know you can either go over it or around it.

[ArtVandelay]

If you're going turbo, you need to fly high, you need to be on Oxygen, better talk that over when any significant others you want to bring along, some people don't like small planes, and telling them they need to wear a mask or cannula on top of that?!

[Sable1]

If you're going turbo, you need to fly high, you need to be on Oxygen, better talk that over when any significant others you want to bring along, some people don't like small planes, and telling them they need to wear a mask or cannula on top of that?!

 

yea - this is a bit of a concern.  The wife is not exactly thrilled about small planes (doen't care a whole lot for the big ones either).  She'll go along if we have a destination, but the $100 hamburger or just to burn some 100LL on a sunny summer day has no apeal to her.  I don't think she'd be excited about the mask, but I think she'd tolerate it.

Good point to bring up though.

[ArtVandelay]

yea - this is a bit of a concern.  The wife is not exactly thrilled about small planes (doen't care a whole lot for the big ones either).  She'll go along if we have a destination, but the $100 hamburger or just to burn some 100LL on a sunny summer day has no apeal to her.  I don't think she'd be excited about the mask, but I think she'd tolerate it.

Good point to bring up though.

 

You THINK she'd tolerate it?!? 

There is an old saying "Happy Wife, Happy Life" . 

If it were me, I would have a heart to heart talk...a older mooney that you can take on short hops around and occasional short trip might serve you better. With the extra $ money you save you can upgrade it to make it your own

[rgpilot]

I flew my 201 with a 231 at low altitued formation flying. The 231 was not as fast as the 201.

[kmyfm20s]

Buy the plane that fills 80-90% of you needs, not the 0-10% of the time.

I bought my J model 2 years ago. And I fly in the mountains of CA. While I certainly would not have minded having a turbo climbing out of Truckee on a warm summer day, I can honestly say that so far, there has not been a single flight that I could not complete in my J that I could have completed in a turbo.

 

Now, I have not flown in a turbo Mooney either, so I don't really know what I'm missing.

 

Larry

I have had the Same experience as you. I could even argue that I can beat a Bravo from San Diego to Jackson Hole in my 201 with the loads I carry and that I can go nonstop. I could be persuaded with a turbo normalized engine fulfilling my needs but not turbo charged.

[Dave Marten]

"I could even argue that I can beat a Bravo from San Diego to Jackson Hole in my 201 with the loads I carry and that I can go nonstop."

KMYFM20J,

Are you issuing a challenge?

Seriously, buy the plane to fit your mission. I bought my turbo for the altitude/speed capabilities and it served me well. I no longer have need for cross country travel. Also does just fine on local hops too. You don't have to go up to the flight levels just to get to lunch. They fly just fine down low too. For me, mission changed, so now I have an excuse to get into aerobatics.

[Dave Marten]

231: KMYF to KJAC in 3+ 50 staying clear of all SUAS and landing with nearly 45 gallons onboard. J can't pull that off. That's at an easy 175KTAS no wind. 231 can go faster

[kmyfm20s]

"I could even argue that I can beat a Bravo from San Diego to Jackson Hole in my 201 with the loads I carry and that I can go nonstop."

KMYFM20J,

Are you issuing a challenge?

Seriously, buy the plane to fit your mission. I bought my turbo for the altitude/speed capabilities and it served me well. I no longer have need for cross country travel. Also does just fine on local hops too. You don't have to go up to the flight levels just to get to lunch. They fly just fine down low too. For me, mission changed, so now I have an excuse to get into aerobatics.

Bring it on! but you need to bring a Bravo and have equal loads. The 231/252 has the fuel burn to make that mission possible just not the other 90% of my flying.

Edit: they also must have a useful load of 937Lbs or greater. So early model 231 and late model 252 capable of encore conversation.

[kmyfm20s]

231: KMYF to KJAC in 3+ 50 staying clear of all SUAS and landing with nearly 45 gallons onboard. J can't pull that off. That's at an easy 175KTAS no wind. 231 can go faster

You save 35 min max and the many times I have flown this route the most fuel I ever burned was 44 gallons.

[Dave Marten]

You save 35 min max and the many times I have flown this route the most fuel I ever burned was 44 gallons.

The J is a very capable machine and arguably the best normally aspirated Mooney, but its not a Bravo-killer. I didn't even mention anything about altitude capability wrt terrain, TAS, winds, wx, etc. I guess I'm just confused about which parameter you are referencing wrt beating a Bravo to Jackson Hole?  Perhaps your only parameter is fuel burned, but in the 231 example if you've got to fly an extra 35 min vs a 231 that's 5 more gallons your burning while the 231 pilot is sipping coffee in the FBO or has taken the courtesy car to lunch. The total fuel used numbers will start to converge as the flight time split between the two planes increases. Not to mention what happens if the 231 pilots can take advantage of a TAS increase with altitude and perhaps a kickin' tail wind up in the FLs.

 

K 4.0 x 12 = 48

J 4.6 x 10 = 46

 

I guess for me the 900lb useful load of a K is plenty. But I only account for 145 lbs of that total so I've got another 50lbs of passenger/fuel capacity that many pilots can't take advantage of.  Yes, in most cases your airplane will perform better with me in it however that line hasn't worked on anyone yet (darn).

 

Each plane has its strong points. For the K its altitude and speed, but gives up some useful load vs most Js. J offers a great balance of speed with a decent useful load and economy for N/A missions (a majority of GA single-engine users).

 

But regardless of which Mooney we fly let's all face it none of our beloved Mooneys are load-haulers. If that capability drove our mission we'd be putting along in brand C with wing struts and welded gear or pouring gas and $ into a big bore Beech A36.

[kmyfm20s]

I hope you understand this is not an attack on any Mooney models.  I am the first to say that I have "Turbo Envy"! I would love the high altitude capabilities of a turbo. I think you have obviously selected a plane that fits your mission profile at the 80-90% mark, that was what I was recommending for the OP and is what I did for myself. For me and the loads I carry on my long trips my useful load would be offset by fuel or I would have to make a stop. Even with the lower fuel burn or your 231 it would be require me to stop and get fuel. I would be not sipping coffee at the FBO at my destination. I would be diverting to the most convenient airport that could fuel me up the quickest and that would take more than 35 minutes. So I am a Bravo killer for my mission profile because my block time would be less. My other 90% I rarely get above 8000 feet and most is 5000 to 6000(the sweet spot for a J), with most of my hops at 79nm. This 90% of the time of my J would be more efficient and only a few knots faster than a K. I fly to work 3X a week and long trips with a lot of gear about every 6 weeks, a J fit my needs very well. It could be improve for my profile if it was Turbo Normalized then I could have the best of both worlds.