Pursuing a Pipe Dream

[Tom_Veatch]

If a couple or three things work out the way I hope in the next few months, I expect to be seriously in the market for an airplane. Since the expected mission would involve significant time at oxygen altitudes in and above some pretty high real estate, I'm thinking turbocharging, if not a necessity for comfortably dealing with the high density altitudes, would certainly be advisable.

Looking at the Mooney line (and the resources that could be made available), I'm thinking something in the 1979-1985 M20K-231 model would be close to ideal for my purpose. From what I understand, the J (201) and the K (231) during those model years were essentially the same airplane aft of the firewall. Yet, the asking prices I see in the classifieds for similarly equipped 201's and 231's suggest the market doesn't see a greater value in the turbo 231.

I'm aware of the teething problems of the Continental GB engine which the LB doesn't completely cure and would love to expand the search to a MB equipped 252 -or possibly buy a runout 231 and mod it with the MB engine, but there is a limit to available resources. I'm aware the care and feeding of the Continental TSIO-360 is more expensive than the Lycoming IO-360, but are there other reasons for the lack of a greater differential between the asking prices of the 201 and 231 from the early '80s?

(or is there a differential there that I'm simply not seeing)

 

[Alan Fox]

I was looking at the 231 mooneys and here is the deal , The overhauls on the turbos are 45k with a good core , there ar NO USED turbo motors out there because it is a mooney only application ( I think it has to do with the alternator placement) Also there is NO difference in performance up to 7 or 8000 feet so unless you spend a considerable amount of time in the teens it is not a benefit, All that said , they came with some kick ass avionics packages, most have the full silver crowm package and the KFC 150/200 autopilot flight director HSI packages ..... They were very tempting , but I decided not to because of the motor.. Also if the core is bad it is another 12000 added on to the overhaul price..

[jlunseth]

I have a 231 with the LB engine.  If you are not thinking of doing many trips over an hour or so, I would go with the J.  But for a longer trip you can't beat the turbocharged aircraft.  Most pilots don't mind a little turbulence, but passengers who do not fly a small plane generally do.  I have done some long (6 hour) trips in a Cessna Slowhawk at low altitude, and it was just no fun being bounced around for that long.  With the 231 you can get up above it most of the time, into the teens at least.  There is also very little traffic up there.  In the lower altitudes there is very little speed gain with the 231, in fact it is generally slower than a J by a hair.  But up high the speed gain is significant.  My TAS is routinely in the high 170's at altitude (16- or 17,500) and ground speeds in the 200's are not at all uncommon with a tail wind.  I really like my 231, even if the maintenance costs are higher.  So do my passengers. 

[IFlyMooney]

I have flown my 231 since 1996 and have accumulated over 1900 hours in it.  The performance above 10K ft is outstanding.  I flight plan for 170 Knots and have always beat the plan. Having the option of going to 24K ft to avoid weather has been very useful in my cross country trips.  It has made the difference between being able to safely make a trip or be grounded waiting for the weather to move out.  I agree that if you are not going to fly long trips or go high, then the turbocharged 231 is not the right plane.  I would go with the J, Eagle or Ovation.

Good luck in your decision.  It is a lot of fun....

[M016576]

I think much of the difference (or lack there of) resides in the value of the motor.  The Continental (from what I understand) typically will require a couple cylinder top overhaul around the 1100hr mark (231 owners, correct me if I'm wrong on this, please!).  The turbo also costs a bit more to fly (burns more fuel, oil and maintenance etc).  So the people that are looking at a 231, like Kevin et al. have stated above, typically are in areas where they require higher altitude flight (rockies, anywhere in the north west, etc) for longer durations.  The 201 is more economical down at 7500' or so from what I've read in terms of fuel burn, and no turbo/wastegate/2 extra cylinders to maintain.  This drives the supply and demand problem that is the aircraft market.... speaking of which, just saw a nice Seneca III available through barron thomas on barnstormers for only 40k!  Of course, it needs two NEW MOTORS (50k each?).  This too may also lend to why the older 231's cost the same as a 201-> the motors may be approaching top overhaul or full overhaul time frame.

I did look at 231's and ended up going with the 201 for this reason: I couldn't find a 231 with a low time engine in my price range (75-85k).  I ended up with a 2000TT, 200TSMOH 1980 201 and couldn't be happier.  I had never had a weather cancel... until today, when I wanted to fly to Idaho for memorial day weekend.  The icing level is at about 8000' right now and the ceilings at elko are bkn020 w/ tops at FL260 (brutal!).  So here I sit in the 80 degree sun, waiting for it to move through (hopefully by tomorrow morning!)...

   A plug for the 201:  I've made about 15 trips from SOCAL through the mountains of Nevada up to Idaho at 8500-11500', averging about 150KTS GS on 9.1gph (LOP).  Turns out I didn't even need GAMI's, the stock injector spread is .4gph.  The 430W is a nice tool for Instrument approaches, the GPS396, though, I've found to be far more powerful of a unit when an XM weather subscription is maintained (I bet the 696 is awesome!).  with a 201, you can get just about anywhere you need to go, and I'm not afraid to take her anywhere just so long as icing isn't an issue (the century 41 AP couples nicely to the 430W, and flys a nice smooth approach... surprising for a 30 year old AP). 

I do think about the 231's from time to time... would be nice (I'd love it), but the turbo would be the proverbial maintenance-cost straw that broke the camels back for me... struggling with a "cheaper" model as it is...

                                     -Job

[KLRDMD]

Quote: n74795

 Also there is NO difference in performance up to 7 or 8000 feet so unless you spend a considerable amount of time in the teens it is not a benefit . . .

[Tom_Veatch]

This guy seems to be pretty hard over toward the 231.

http://www.mooneyland.com/201%20vs%20231.htm

Hard to read on my monitor - had to cut and paste into a separate text document. But, assuming you can read it, any comments?

 

[ovation0219]

I have over 1200 hours behind a cont TSIO360 with no problems. That was a Victor Overhaul but any good engine should give you the same service if you fly it well. As far as the expenses it uses more fuel per hour but it covers more ground in an hour. flying between 10K and 14K is great a 231 or 252 is a great choice. However if you can swing it there are some deals on TLS' and Bravo's today.

Good Luck

Ricky

[RJBrown]

My first plane was a 1980 231 that was later converted to a 305 Rocket. I now own a 1990 MSE. Under 12 the J model is great 150-160kts on 8-10 gph. Above it gets pretty weak. The 231 climbs well into the flight levels and a Rocket is still well over 1000 fpm at 26,000'. When I am scooting along down low the MSE is wonderful. When I fly west of here I really miss the turbos. Last weekend I flew over the mountains and the winds and rough air beat us up at 16,500. With a turbo we could have sailed along in the 20s. It all comes down to money vs performance.