Turbo or not

[bnelson1967]

I recently sold my F model and am looking for a replacement.  Now that I've owned a Mooney I don't see me going to anything else.  I live in the desert and commute to work each week about 200 miles so with no mountains or clouds and 300 days of sun a low flier made sense.  I'm going to be heading home to the Pacific Northwest soon and will need to fly about the same distance but will need to deal with going over the cascades and a lot of cloudy days.  I will be finishing up my IFR training once I get another plane but hard IFR is not what I want to do.  So with the mountains and the clouds should I go with a K model or with the J?  If I was flying a few hours I know it would be the K but with my typical mission only 1-1.5 hours and having never flown in the PNW I'm not sure what would be best.  Any help would be appreciated!

[DonMuncy]

I bought a K model for no particular reason. But when you do need to get high enough to go over (or at least get high enough to see) the weather, or want to get higher for terrain clearance, it is very nice to be able to do so. I know I am paying for the privilege, but I would hate to have to give up the turbo. 

[carusoam]

From two of my favorite NJMOONEY pilots I get the argument that their mission is near identical and one may be slightly faster than the other...

In other words, from your F experience, you already know what a J has to offer...

What does the K offer to you clearing the cascades?

Keep in mind, I am not familiar with flying over the cascades.

But if you are flying around at 10k' and you are only 1k off the ground, heading into some clouds, you may want to climb quickly.

A modern TC engine with controller and inter cooler would add some capability.

New Acclaims are rolling off the production line...

Best regards,

-a-

[M20F-1968]

I do not know your budget but I can offer the following:

 

I learned to fly in Oregon (Hillsboro Airport),  got my instrument rating there and lived there for 8 years.  You will want your instrument rating eventually.  The ceilings are usually 2000 feet and overcast.  When doing my instrument training, we routinely filed 3000 and all of my training was actual.  At that level we never picked up ice, but the risk is there up higher.   Going north/south - you will not need a turbo unless you want to get above weather or need to go over the cascades.

 

Of the choices:  

 

The ideal would be a turbonormalized J, F or E.   Less maintenance, and if you have the original RayJay turbo on the F or E, you can take it out of the system at lower altitudes.  The turbonormalized planes are 160 kts at 9000 and 175-180 kts at 18,000 on 10 gallons per hour.

 

The K will certainly work.  Maintenance and operating expense will be more.  The turbo is less efficient at lower altitudes.

 

I have a rebuilt original RayJay if interested (should you buy and E or F).  I could also be used on a J with some air box modifications.

 

This is typical of the decisions made when buying an airplane.   There will always be compromises, but the IFR flying you most likely will be doing is to climb up or descend through the overcast.  Most days the ceilings will be 2000 ft.  I have less information on usual tops because most of my flying there was IFR in the cloud layer.  I suspect the cloud layer is mostly less than 3000 feet or less.

 

John Breda

 

John Breda

[aviatoreb]

Besides climbing high - I get up there quickly.  Quick enough that I don't think twice about going up even for relatively short trips.  I have recorded under 7 minutes to 10k and under 13 min to 17k.

[M20F]

I elected for a M20F with a Rayjay. I do 2-3 long trips per year which the turbo gives me versatility in terms of weather and speed but for the majority of my flying it is short hops. I looked at 231/252's but couldn't justify the need. I took the initial purchase savings and spent it on upgrades and getting the ship I bought in top shape then spent the rest on a lot of gas :-)

[chrisk]

I've never flown in the pacific north west, but your probably fine either way.  I would lean towards a turbo.  The climb performance is nice, and most 231s come with a hot prop, which could come in handy.  A rocket would be nice too.   Fuel consumptions is probably a little higher.

[cliffy]

Take a good look at the IFR MEAs where you are going and see then if you need a turbo. I suspect you will want one as you will want the capability of being 3000 to 5000 above the MEA for performance in down drafts even at the MEA. You're now in tall mountains and you will have winds and down drafts. You will more than need a good oxygen system. Plenty of threads here in this forum on O2. The suggestion of a turbo normalized Mooney is more than good. Make sure what ever you do, get a good MSC prebuy done. Many threads on prebuys here.

Now, my mantra- ICE KILLS and you'll see it in the NW in the fall and winter. Get the IR and practice in "better" weather (2000' ceilings) and then do a few lower near mins approaches to get your feet wet). If you do single pilot IFR make sure you get a very good autopilot and learn how to use it but don't become an A/P cripple. Hand fly an approach in IMC once in a while (1 out of 3)to stay in the game.

[Jerry 5TJ]

Today near Denver, westbound at 16,500 in Dave's M20M we elected to pick up an IFR clearance for FL180 to clear some tops.
Then we flew into clouds and started to get some rime ice so we climbed to FL200 where the ice was minimal. After about 40 miles we flew ino better weather, just as NEXRAD showed. Turbocharging, the Bravo's power and the hot prop got us above the worst of the rime ice.

As Cliffy points out there are plenty of mountains and weather in the Pacific Northwest: Excess capability beyond your "normal mission" is sometimes of great utility.

[chrisk]

I have to say I am always surprised by the utility that a turbo provides.  Saturday I was flying from Austin Tx, to Eureka Springs AR, with an ugly routing (AGJ to 4M1) that put me right over DFW.  The controller asked me if I wanted to get vectored around, or fly over at FL190.   I chose to go over.  And it's something that would have been hard without a turbo.  --And as a side, the controllers seemed to be working very hard.  It appears there are new arrival procedures at DFW.   Unfortunately, on the way back, I was at 12,000 and wasn't given the option of going over, not that I would have wanted to climb that high with my home airport 150 miles away.

[Bob - S50]

Going from 300 days of sunshine to 300 days of drizzle huh?  (Pssst, don't tell anybody, but it really isn't that bad... but since you are from here you already knew that).

 

I'm based at Auburn, WA.  The Cascades are not that high.  Your problem with flying over the Cascades in winter is not the mountains, its ICING.  The freezing level around here in the winter will usually be about 5000 in the Seattle area and somewhat higher as you head South.  I've seen days in the Air Force when it was solid from 300' AGL all the way to FL350 (we gave up looking for clear at that point).

 

What cities will you be going between?  SEA to SFF?  SEA to PSC?  PDX to BDN?  EUG to BDN?

 

The MEA on V2 heading from Seattle toward Spokane is only 8400 feet.  I feel comfortable VFR at 7500 but you'll have to go at 9000 eastbound and 10,000 westbound if IFR.  That will definitely make icing a factor.

 

The MEA on V4 toward Yakima, Pasco, and Wallla Walla is 10,000.

V112 from the Portland area to east side has an MEA of 7000.

T302 and T304 have 8000' MEA's heading SE out of the Portland area.

V269 from EUG to DSD is only 10,000'

 

Not that high.  A J would work fine, but regardless of what you get you'll be hard pressed to count on making it without encountering icing in the winter.

 

Bob

[larryb]

I have not flown in the Cascades, but I do fly in the Sierras in the winter. I have found that my IR is not all that useful in the Sierras. Either the weather is good VFR or it's bad enough that I'm not going regardless. There have been a couple of times where I think a TKS equipped Bravo could have safely made a flight that I have cancelled. If you are planning on much winter flying I would look at something with TKS.

[WardHolbrook]

When it comes to turbo or not, I take the following two items into consideration:
1. High altitude climb and cruise performance
2. High density altitude takeoff performance

If either one or both of these are frequent considerations then turbocharging makes sense. But if you spend most of your time down low, you'll likely have to pay a slight speed penalty for having an “unnecessary” turbo. Getting checked out in an turbocharged aircraft is simple enough, but a simple checkout may or may not be enough for a lot of guys new to aircraft of that performance level. Simple systems training and a few times around the pattern probably will not be adequate for guys stepping up to their first turbocharged airplane. There are a lot more things that need to be addressed. Since you can now readily fly up in the flight levels - are your instrument and weather skills up to snuff with the other pilots that frequent that part of the atmosphere? Have you ever been to an altitude chamber? There's a lot physiological stuff you really ought to know about and experience if you're going to play around up there. What about your altitude weather knowledge?   And the list goes on...

 

There's probably nothing more dangerous than a "low performance" pilot flying a high performance airplane and a turbocharged Mooney is as about as high performance as you can get in a single-engine piston powered airplane. A FIKI equipped turbo Mooney is about as capable as any light airplane out there and it is arguably more challenging to fly than a turboprop single. Being safe in one requires that you bring more to the table up front and that you get proper recurrent training as well. 

 

All that being said, I lived in the Pacific Northwest (Oregon) for several years and if I were to buy a Mooney there would be no question about it - turbocharged and  FIKI.

[bnelson1967]

Thanks everyone for the usual excellent input.  It sounds like the turbo is the better way to go to get out of the stuff but can anyone tell me what the typical tops are when it's raining?  I won't be going if there is a storm but just the normal Seattle and Portland steady rain.  When I fly commercial they seem to be in the 10k plus range.  My typical route will be KUAO to KLMT,  with excursions to KBFI, and further north in Washington (San Juan Islands).   As noted ice is the real issue and I don't have the desire to stay in the clouds the entire flight.  If the tops are so high I will be in potential ice for a long time I should probably get a J, stay low, and not go. 

[Guitarmaster]

I grew up and flew 135 freight in the PNW. Ice is a huge problem in the winter, spring, fall. The moisture sits up against the mountains make lots of ice. So much so that there is an A.C. on it. Don't know what number though. I have had, no kidding (I have a pic somewhere), eight inches of ice on a known ice Seneca 2. Two turbo engines with icex'ed boots descending uncontrolled down the western slopes. It was great experience... I'm good not doing it again. .

If this is your only method of commute, turbo AND TKS. Regarding TKS, use it early and often. Get behind and let ice build up, well... Good luck.

New airplane purchase, very exciting!!!!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Amelia]

I bought part of a 231 a long time ago in an area where the mountains to the east are up to 3000 feet. No real need for turbocharging, but it was a lovely airplane at a good price with great partners, so what the heck? Then eventually I moved it to a part of the country where the hills can be as high as 30 feet. In both cases, the ability to climb quickly over the summer haze and heat, around the buildups, out of the murk, bumps and drizzle into smooth and cool and sunny air.has proved really useful. On long trips, the 13-17k cruise altitudes get really good tailwinds without having to break out a real oxygen mask as the adjustable-flow nasal cannulas work fine. I rarely NEED turbocharging here in the swamp, but it is mighty nice to have that choice, and often much better routing.The main drawback for me is the small difficulty and expense of recharging the built-in O2 bottle. If I were living in a really mountainous area as you will be, there would be no question. Turbocharging makes everything so much easier. Having the option to climb high over the Cascades, the Rockies, the Sierras, even these eastern mountains, to whatever altitude provides a nice ride, is great freedom. I would second the notion that an autopilot is a basic requirement, as it's a slippery airplane. I find it hard to multitask well, looking up the approach plates for the alternate after the missed, cleaning up the grandchild's upset tummy, and copying an amended clearance while hand-flying it in bumpy clouds. Ice? It can be a real danger, of course. While the healthy climb rate of a 231 or newer can get your behind out of trouble faster, best you don't get it in that situation in the first place.

[Bob - S50]

Thanks everyone for the usual excellent input.  It sounds like the turbo is the better way to go to get out of the stuff but can anyone tell me what the typical tops are when it's raining?  I won't be going if there is a storm but just the normal Seattle and Portland steady rain.  When I fly commercial they seem to be in the 10k plus range.  My typical route will be KUAO to KLMT,  with excursions to KBFI, and further north in Washington (San Juan Islands).   As noted ice is the real issue and I don't have the desire to stay in the clouds the entire flight.  If the tops are so high I will be in potential ice for a long time I should probably get a J, stay low, and not go. 

Again,  if you want to fly the Oregon/Washington in the winter, I'd concentrate on FIKI not necessarily turbo.  But if you have the money, what the heck.  Then again, if you have the money, get a Cessna 340.

 

There are three types of 'typical' winter days I saw in the Seattle area when I was in the Air Force and did not care about icing:

 

1.  Bases as low as 300', light drizzle, tops at about 6000', clear above.

2.  Bases as low as WOXOF, solid to FL300 or higher.

3.  Bases of varying heights, layered to about FL250.

 

Oregon may be a bit better and the freezing levels will be a bit higher than in the Seattle area.

 

Good luck,

 

Bob

[carusoam]

Summary...

Your plan includes:

- Flying a tight schedule. Want to be at work on Monday=tight

- in IMC

- year round. Includes icing conditions.

- with mountains tall enough to get a name

You are embarking on some serious GA flying. It is as serious as any single engine flying gets.

People that do this and fly Mooneys prefer:

- FIKI

- Turbo

- Oxygen

- XM and ADSB weather

- Instrument Rating

This is a long list of experience that takes time to acquire.

Don't be surprised how easy it is to buy these things. A stack of cash and a few days in San Antonio is all it takes. 10 days later you can have an IR rating.

It's the quality of the training combined with the experience that counts...

Get started earlier on the training.

-a-

[JohnB]

I would definitely recommend turbo if you can. The clear advantages I see are:

• Outstanding climb performance on takeoff
• Continued great climb performance at high density altitude, making flying on warmer days not a problem
• Ability to go to and leave high elevation airports also without issues
• Ability to climb above turbulence quickly
• Being able to fly between 12K and 25K, you essentially have your own sky, as most GA fleet are below you, and commercial traffic is well above you.
• Ability to fly higher over mountainous terrain, avoiding turbulence and also much safer by going higher (especially important at night) giving you many more options to land if you ever needed to in a hurry.
• Being able to take advantage of some great tailwinds and speeds up high, getting you there at times ahead of most commercial flights (including TSA and all of the other airport commercial things you have to do)

Adequate training is key. I purposely did not put flying above storms as one of the bonuses as I wouldn't buy or use a turbo for that purpose. I avoid flying in situations where I might even remotely get icing, and even if I did get TKS, I would still avoid flying in those conditions as trying to get on top or rain clouds can be impossible as storms can quickly go well above 30k, without warning,  then you're out of options.

 

But for all of the other non storm - dodging reasons, Turbo is fantastic!

[WardHolbrook]

There seems to be two methods of employment when it comes to TKS on FIKI certified Mooneys. One is that it should only be used to beat a hasty retreat in the event of an icing encounter. There is nothing wrong with that approach except that I believe that it's overly conservative and that's coming from me, the most conservative pilot you know. Having TKS and then not taking advantage of it is a waste. Icing is where you find it. Let me explain. Even when icing is forecast and reported, it is still usually found in bands or layers and usually a change in altitude is all that is required to get you out of the band. TKS will keep the icing demons at bay while you search for the icing-free altitude(s) and allows you to soldier on. Do you use it to drone on and on in while in actual icing? Of course not, but it does allow you to legally dispatch when the forecast is calling for ice. Like everything else TKS has its PROS and CONS and it can certainly be misused like any other piece of equipment on your tricked out Mooney, but it is nothing more than a tool that, when used properly, allows you to safely expand the capabilities of your airplane. 

[bnelson1967]

Thanks again everyone.  After reviewing everyone's input it looks like driving in the winter will be the best way to go.  Will still most likely go turbo if I can find the right plane.

[Piloto]

For short trips going higher may be impractical and more fuel. By the time you get at altitude you may need to start a descent.

 

José  

[larryb]

People talk about great tailwinds at altitude. But for some reason, for me, I always have a 20 kt headwind. I really don't understand why that is. Now days I'm just happy if it's not a 30 kt headwind.

[kmyfm20s]

People talk about great tailwinds at altitude. But for some reason, for me, I always have a 20 kt headwind. I really don't understand why that is. Now days I'm just happy if it's not a 30 kt headwind.

I hate to through salt in your wound but check out this recent tail wind! Even N/A plane can get a tail wind and with numbers like this I'm Ok with out a Turbo:)

I posted this same picture on another thread about a recent trip to Idaho.

[FlyDave]

And with a turbo....

This was "a moment in time".  I soon slowed down to an average of 245 knots GS....Just sayin'...