M20R vs. M20C

[Andy95W]

I'll begin by saying this isn't meant as a competition, but rather to extol the virtues of both models, and to say that if it was a competition between 2 Mooneys, everybody wins!

I had a really interesting formation flight in my M20C and a friend who has an M20R Ovation 3. We were flying at 2500', and we compared fuel flow numbers. I set power and leaned to the book numbers, airspeed was identical (formation).

M20C: 25"x2500 rpm, 84% power

FF: 12.3 gph

M20R: 13.8 gph

M20C: 24x2400 rpm, 78% power

FF: 11.0 gph

M20R: 13.2 gph

M20C: 23"x2300 rpm, 71% power

FF: 10.0 gph

M20R: 9.7 gph (LOP)

I wasn't too surprised by the M20C's greater efficiency because of course I weigh about 800 pounds less.

The thing I marvelled at is that we each have the most efficient airplane for our missions; I typically fly no more than 300 miles with one passenger. The M20R would be inefficient for my mission profile (particularly taking into account the acquisition cost).

My friend flies for his business with 2 passengers, significant baggage, and 500-2000 miles. He is TKS equipped and needs the ability to get altitude to top weather. My M20C would be inefficient for his mission profile.

Yet another reason to love all Mooneys!

BTW, he 'goosed' his Ovation to 75% power and casually left me behind. Then again, for $500k, he should!

[Lood]

Interesting Andy. To me personally, the Ovation is of course the ultimate. I would be very interested to see this same exercise be performed at say 9500'.

[carusoam]

I have enjoyed both for a long time....

Best regards,

-a-

[Danb]

Lood.......that's not fair playing mean..

[Lood]

Lood.......that's not fair playing mean..

 

Hi Danb, it was really an honest question. Most of my flying is done between two farms that are 285nm apart, so I normally use this as my primary mission and whenever I compare any airplanes to my F or each other, I use this as the primary requirement.

The airplane has to be able to go there and back in reasonable time and without having to refuel. To add to that, it must also be able to carry my family, with some bags. So, it basically has to be able to load around 650lbs and carry enough fuel to to fly 600nm and have about 40 minutes reserve after landing.

With all the comparisons that I've done so far, I think only the M20J and K models were able to beat my F ito efficiency and economy. I normally do this trip in an average of 4h20min odd and burn around 47 gal of fuel. It would be interesting to know what he Ovations' figures would be.

The C and E models actually burn less fuel, but I'm not sure that they if take could take the load, unfortunately.

[bonal]

What was your TAS during the comparison on each power setting?

[Andy95W]

I didn't really bother with true airspeed because we were at such a low altitude. It was more of a curiosity and then trying to understand why the C burns less for the same speed.

The speed mods I have are 201 windshield, LASAR cowl closure, flap gap seals, and tail root/ dorsal fin.

Lood mentioned doing the same test at 9500. I think the FF delta between the models would be similar, except that the Ovation could be LOP the whole time, and would then be more efficient.

It felt like the place the R would truly shine would be at very high altitude, particularly with an east-bound tailwind. My buddy regularly climbs to 16,000 but I've never been above 11. Not much reason to go higher if you're only going 300 miles.

[Cruiser]

Andy, I think you have it about right.

 

My Ovation averages about 15 gph for one hour trips. It gets progressively better the longer the distance, but take-off and the climb out are at 29 gph and that sucks up a lot of fuel to start. Normally (LOP) I can get 12.2 to 12.5 gph in cruise at 170 KTAS but that is only ~13 mpg when I could routinely get 17+ mpg in the J.

It is really hard to feed two extra cylinders and match the efficiency of your C 

 

Your not that far away, you should fly down sometime and we can discuss this in depth at the Tin Goose Diner located right on the field. (good food)

[carusoam]

My C would record about 18mpg...but the ability to measure that included climbs descents and tailwinds...

I was just so impressed at the mileage while safely exceeding 100+mph...

This is most likely better than a Corvette going the same speed.

Now, I have the tools to measure mpg @200+mph, safely...

I just choose to read about it every now and then, than actually see it...

Good to know,

-a-

[Andy95W]

Andy, I think you have it about right.

 

My Ovation averages about 15 gph for one hour trips. It gets progressively better the longer the distance, but take-off and the climb out are at 29 gph and that sucks up a lot of fuel to start. Normally (LOP) I can get 12.2 to 12.5 gph in cruise at 170 KTAS but that is only ~13 mpg when I could routinely get 17+ mpg in the J.

It is really hard to feed two extra cylinders and match the efficiency of your C 

 

Your not that far away, you should fly down sometime and we can discuss this in depth at the Tin Goose Diner located right on the field. (good food)

29 gph! I love the Ovation, but the Chief Financial Officer is still waiting for my analysis and justification for the upgrade... so it'll probably never happen.

We keep talking about flying down to Port Clinton to see the museum, and I've always wanted to go to the restaurant. Back in the 70's, I had a flight in one of the Island Airlines Ford Trimotors.

[carusoam]

Fortunately the climb only lasts a few minutes at that GPH...

To sell the CFO on the Long Body is to allow her to sit in one with the digital electronics on.

If flying is not her thing, the climb to smooth air is quick and the flight is not that long.

I think my financial advisor may have gone to the same school as your CFO...

Putting an EI CGR in the panel of your C may do a lot to give that modern feel...

Best regards,

-a-