Getting closer to buying own plane. I think I am set on a M20k. Couple questions

[golfpilot]

I am getting closer to getting an airplane. The m20k seems to be exactly what I want and my business partner is willing to make it a business purchase making it even more attractive.

 

 I'm set on the turbo, I want fast climbs to 11-12k and the ability to go direct (or close to direct) to phoenix and Albuquerque from the bay area a few times a year. Couple of concerns thought maybe a real m20k owner can help with. 

 

1. When I go to Phoenix from the bay area it will usually be with 600 pounds of people and bags, It doesn't look like M20k's can do this with full fuel but the trip, even the long non-oxygen needed way, is only about 600 miles, I think that would mean 60 gallons would be enough and would work. Is it easy to gauge how much fuel is in the tanks? Or is it more of a guess work? 

 

2. older vs newer models. Is there any big difference between a 1981 model and a 1988 model? Are the maintenance costs way different? For me I want a WAAS capable, autopilot equipped plane. I am very good with engine management and making a steady 500fpm descent in the 182RG I fly now, I don't feel like I would be bothered by the 231's added engine management issues. Some of the 231's look really good. Will I likely save in maintenance by getting a newer year than an older year enough to make up the acquisition cost?

 

3. TKS- How much in costs does this add to maintenance and annuals? SInce it isn't FIKI, i don't feel like much extra cost is really worth it. I often find myself floating around 0c in the NA 182RG if fly now. I'm pretty sure if I could get better speeds up higher I would flirt closer to the freezing temps more. Have 0 interest in cruising in freezing clouds. Opinions on this?

 

 

Thanks

 

[carusoam]

Golf,

There is a really cool thread by 231, 252, K and Rocket pilots regarding equipage and operation.

Find that thread, and you will learn some real details by guys that were discussing them for weeks.

Turbos, controllers and inter coolers have changed over the years. Some are better than others...

Best regards,

-a-

[chrisk]

I have a 1982 231.  The useful load is 975 lbs.  For rough flight planning a few days a head, I use 12gph and 145 kts.  If my mission fits in that, I generally don't worry much about it.   If however I am planning a longer trip, winds and altitude make all the difference.  Pick wisely. At 16,000 feet, you can get 165 kts @ 10GPH and when headed east, you can usually pick up a nice tail wind.  My last trip I was not in a hurry: 5000 feet, 9 gph, and 140 kts.  To date my longest west bound trip was 800 miles 12,000 feet, 5.5 hours @ 10gph.  The way home was right at 4 hours at 19,000 feet. 

 

Managing the engine on a 231 is not hard.  However, it requires some discipline, as the user can abuse the engine. Don't plan of flying at 100% power and leaning to peak.  The 252 model has a very similar engine, but it is easier to manage.  They come with an absolute pressure controller, an intercooler, and a better induction system.  They often have a lower useful weight, often by 100 lbs.

 

The Rocket is a great go fast plane and a bargain for the speed.  They will however burn more fuel and I don't think there is a significant difference in useful load.  i.e. for the same fuel, they have less range.  All that said, I'd love to have one.

 

 

For managing fuel, a fuel stick is a good idea.  You will know how much you start off with.  A fuel totalizer will help you keep track of how much you have used.  And for what it is worth, my fuel gauges are pretty accurate when I am getting close to empty.

[Houman]

I have a 1982 231.  The useful load is 975 lbs.  For rough flight planning a few days a head, I use 12gph and 145 kts.  If my mission fits in that, I generally don't worry much about it.   If however I am planning a longer trip, winds and altitude make all the difference.  Pick wisely. At 16,000 feet, you can get 165 kts @ 10GPH and when headed east, you can usually pick up a nice tail wind.  My last trip I was not in a hurry: 5000 feet, 9 gph, and 140 kts.  To date my longest west bound trip was 800 miles 12,000 feet, 5.5 hours @ 10gph.  The way home was right at 4 hours at 19,000 feet. 

 

Managing the engine on a 231 is not hard.  However, it requires some discipline, as the user can abuse the engine. Don't plan of flying at 100% power and leaning to peak.  The 252 model has a very similar engine, but it is easier to manage.  They come with an absolute pressure controller, an intercooler, and a better induction system.  They often have a lower useful weight, often by 100 lbs.

 

The Rocket is a great go fast plane and a bargain for the speed.  They will however burn more fuel and I don't think there is a significant difference in useful load.  i.e. for the same fuel, they have less range.  All that said, I'd love to have one.

 

 

For managing fuel, a fuel stick is a good idea.  You will know how much you start off with.  A fuel totalizer will help you keep track of how much you have used.  And for what it is worth, my fuel gauges are pretty accurate when I am getting close to empty.

Well not sure about the 231 or 252 usefull load, but with the Rocket conversion, you get a useful load of 2900 for the cabin and 3200 for the plane, meaning anything over 2900 lbs has to be fuel in the wings, so that means 300 lbs or 50gal of fuel dos'nt directly count against your in cabin weight limit. I have flown mine near 3200, not much difference in cold days at my local airport, not sure on hot days in altitude, but the Rocket climbs like a rocket... It does cost more fuel, but you get there faster and use less engine time.

[chrisk]

Well not sure about the 231 or 252 usefull load, but with the Rocket conversion, you get a useful load of 2900 for the cabin and 3200 for the plane, meaning anything over 2900 lbs has to be fuel in the wings, so that means 300 lbs or 50gal of fuel dos'nt directly count against your in cabin weight limit. I have flown mine near 3200, not much difference in cold days at my local airport, not sure on hot days in altitude, but the Rocket climbs like a rocket... It does cost more fuel, but you get there faster and use less engine time.

For my 231, gross is 2900, and empty is 1925, which give a useful load of 975.  I'm under the impression that the Rocket conversion adds quite a bit of empty weight, but that it is largely offset by the gross increase.  What is the empty wight of your Rocket?   

[Houman]

Empty is 2294.6 lbs, 2900 limit upped to 3200 with fuel, so that means 905 with fuel.

The lost of empty weight is well worth it comparing to the beast that you get with the new engine !

[M016576]

My missile w/ TKS has an empty weight of 1010lbs.

I know the OP says his heart is set on a turbo, but if your 90% cruise altitude is less than 14k, a missile, M20S or Ovation would probably be a better choice. JMHO

[Jimhamilton]

I bought my M20K about three years ago.  My experience with turbocharged aircraft engines before my purchase was about 1,000 hours in the Cessna 402 and 404 twins.  So I knew a little about what I was getting into.  I was well aware that bad pilot technique could reduce the life of the power plant and dramatically increase maintenance cost.  So this is my point, along with having the aircraft inspected and logs looked over, interview the pilot.  Is he/she professional.  How well does the pilot know the aircraft, limitations and procedures.  What is their experience level and what ratings do they have.  You have to be the judge.  Its your investment.  For example.  When I was looking to buy I came across some owners who were very ignorant to basic concepts and procedure.  I was amazed at how little they knew about the airplane.  Then we looked at the logs and they too showed a disregard to professionalism.  

 

For example.  A Mooney M20K is at a high cruise altitude for over an hour.  The pilot starts the descent late and needs to get down quickly.  He pulls the power back abruptly and makes the ear popping descent.  I can almost here that crackling sound cylinders make when cooling off quickly.  The pilot enters the base leg too high and fast.  Turns final.  Again, high and fast.  He then floats more then half way down a short runway and make the safe decision to go around.  However, this pilot is not sharp.  He forgot his GUMP check and did not enriched the mixture on approach.  (Very bad when pulling 40 inches of manifold on go around)  The next thing this pilot has forgotten is the cowl flaps.  On descent his engine cooled much to quickly and now on his go around he is heating the cylinders much to quickly and past the red line.  He remembers the gear and has numerous radio calls to make.  He is startled, but manages to get the Mooney back around for another attempt.  However, he never notices the cylinder head temp or for that matter any other engine instrument.

 

For this one flight this pilot has made numerous mistakes that may not show now, but will cost big time in the future.  That "big time cost" could be your cost.  So please, interview the pilot as well as getting the airplane checked.  It can save you big time.

 

One more thing.  I love my Mooney 231 (m20k).  I am glad I bought it and I think you will be too.  It is a great airplane.  Be safe.

[M20F]

To me unless you are doing a lot of high level per year the turbo Mooney's are overkill. You can do a lot with a TN F for a ton less money and trick it completely out for the cost of a decent K. More useful load, less maintainence, etc. I generally only go high coming back from Wyoming in the fall, otherwise the winds rarely work to make it worth climbing to FL's and unless it is a long trip the time you lose in climb isn't worth it. Even a rocket is going to take 20+ mins to get to medium FL's. With long range tanks a TN F will eat most planes at the truly long haul stuff as well. Just a lot more versatility that suits GA.

They are awesome machines but have such a narrow profile to really make their full use. It is like buying a Lear jet for a 150nm commute, but that is just my opinion :-)

[dtoelke]

Jim those are some excellent points.  I would also highly recommend that you invest in an engine management system.  I purchased my 231 a couple months back, installed one immediately and frankly wouldn't fly without it.  Despite my low time I would consider myself a very proficient pilot from an engine management perspective.  My background is in engineering and that stuff just makes sense to me.  However, you will inevitablely find yourself in unexpected situations (especially in the first 20-30 hrs) where you WILL forget something on your checklist and the EMS is there to let you know something isn't right before it becomes detrimental to your engine.

 

Just a few examples from my brief time as an M20K owner:

 

Level off in cruise, CHT cooling rate exceeds 30 deg/min... realize I forgot to close the cowl flaps

Switching from cruise to climb, CHTs start edging over 380... look down and realized cowl flaps are still closed

Running LOP, CHT's start edging over 380... lean mixture further

CHT on #4 a couple weeks back started rising uncontrollably on the ground.  Shut off engine before it got too hot, pulled injector and found a partially blocked nozzle.

 

The list goes on and on...

 

A couple other things:

 

1) Get a model with speedbrakes.  People harp on this all the time but it can't be said enough.  I try not to use them by properly planning descents but boy will you be happy to have them when you need them.  I think you will find the Mooney descent is quite different from the Cessna (in a very good way!) but it can catch you offguard the 1st, 2nd, or 30th time when you realize you're way to high!  At this point speed brakes allow you to avoid making the decision between circling (which most of us prefer to avoid) and nosing down with power reduction.

 

2) If you practice the technique and are proficient I would NOT recommend enriching on final.  Dumping a bunch of fuel into the cylinders with low power settings causes them to cool very rapidly (the very thing you were trying to avoid through that 30 minute descent).  The argument against this technique (which is a very legitamate point I might add) is that people forget to push the mixture in when excecuting a go-around.  It is an individual choice and all depends on what you are comfortable with, but there's no question which is better for your engine.

 

3) As for the turbo/non-turbo debate, the fact is you live in a part of the country with a lot of geography and at some point you will want to fly over it.  I live in Bakersfield and debated for some time between the K and J models.  After flying the K for a couple months I can't believe I even considered the J.  Unless you're planning to stick to the coast or budget dictates, the turbo is a no brainer (in California).  Flying over much of the Sierras in a J would be a hair raising event not to mention a long, long climb to reach even moderately safe altitudes.

 

Like the others have said, these are great airplanes and a blast to fly.  There aren't many birds out there that can muster 180 kts on 9 gph.

[Jimhamilton]

Yes, the speed brake. Before I flew the Mooney I thought that a speed brake was a ridiculous idea. Now I know better. I use speed brakes all the time on the 777 but thought that such a thing on a single engine plane was useless. The Mooney is a speed machine and does not like to slow down. I often fly over high terrain in Colorado and Wish I had a speed brake. If I were you I would try and get one.

[aviatoreb]

Even a rocket is going to take 20+ mins to get to medium FL's.

 

Where did you get that data?  I timed a climb about two weeks ago from sea level to 17,000 in just over 12 min.

 

With a fast climber, there is no reason to go higher on most flights, even relatively short ones if winds, terrain, weather, or even comfort (cooler in the summer) suggest.

[M016576]

Jim those are some excellent points. I would also highly recommend that you invest in an engine management system. I purchased my 231 a couple months back, installed one immediately and frankly wouldn't fly without it. Despite my low time I would consider myself a very proficient pilot from an engine management perspective. My background is in engineering and that stuff just makes sense to me. However, you will inevitablely find yourself in unexpected situations (especially in the first 20-30 hrs) where you WILL forget something on your checklist and the EMS is there to let you know something isn't right before it becomes detrimental to your engine.

Just a few examples from my brief time as an M20K owner:

Level off in cruise, CHT cooling rate exceeds 30 deg/min... realize I forgot to close the cowl flaps

Switching from cruise to climb, CHTs start edging over 380... look down and realized cowl flaps are still closed

Running LOP, CHT's start edging over 380... lean mixture further

CHT on #4 a couple weeks back started rising uncontrollably on the ground. Shut off engine before it got too hot, pulled injector and found a partially blocked nozzle.

The list goes on and on...

A couple other things:

1) Get a model with speedbrakes. People harp on this all the time but it can't be said enough. I try not to use them by properly planning descents but boy will you be happy to have them when you need them. I think you will find the Mooney descent is quite different from the Cessna (in a very good way!) but it can catch you offguard the 1st, 2nd, or 30th time when you realize you're way to high! At this point speed brakes allow you to avoid making the decision between circling (which most of us prefer to avoid) and nosing down with power reduction.

2) If you practice the technique and are proficient I would NOT recommend enriching on final. Dumping a bunch of fuel into the cylinders with low power settings causes them to cool very rapidly (the very thing you were trying to avoid through that 30 minute descent). The argument against this technique (which is a very legitamate point I might add) is that people forget to push the mixture in when excecuting a go-around. It is an individual choice and all depends on what you are comfortable with, but there's no question which is better for your engine.

3) As for the turbo/non-turbo debate, the fact is you live in a part of the country with a lot of geography and at some point you will want to fly over it. I live in Bakersfield and debated for some time between the K and J models. After flying the K for a couple months I can't believe I even considered the J. Unless you're planning to stick to the coast or budget dictates, the turbo is a no brainer (in California). Flying over much of the Sierras in a J would be a hair raising event not to mention a long, long climb to reach even moderately safe altitudes.

Like the others have said, these are great airplanes and a blast to fly. There aren't many birds out there that can muster 180 kts on 9 gph.

I lived in Ridgecrest (based out of IYK) for 3 years and flew a J on a regular basis over the Sierras. It was not hair raising... It was a non-event- remember, you really have to get over 10K before a K pulls away from a J. The only times I didn't like the J was when it's really hot... The climb could feel like a crawl then. But a J flies just fine up at 14-15K- the climb rates are pretty slow there though.

If you're cruising, or regularly planning on cruising up above 14K, I'd get a Turbo'd model... But if you're going to be down in the "mask-off-o-sphere" for the majority of your flights, you're better served with NA- at least from an economy standpoint. There's always the "I own a turbo" factor- which for some is more than enough to justify the cost!

[Seth]

My missile w/ TKS has an empty weight of 1010lbs.

I know the OP says his heart is set on a turbo, but if your 90% cruise altitude is less than 14k, a missile, M20S or Ovation would probably be a better choice. JMHO

Except the terrain he plans to fly over a few times per year - he'll want the turbo for those hops.  I flew my Missile up to 17,000+ on my trip across the USA out west, but if I had hit icing, it would not have been good as I'd have limited outs.  I do not have TKS on my Missile.

 

Alex and I are both based at GAI.  He has a 231 and I have a Missile.  We have compared our real world performance.  At sea level, my 300 HP climbs and is much faster than his 210 HP.  Once we get up to 10,000 or so, we are close to even in speed, but I'm more efficient.  Once we are higher, he pulls away.  Just like what was mentioned.  If you are going fly over 14k a lot, go turbo, otherwise, a big NA engine (Missile, Ovation, Eagle) may make sense.

 

With the terrain you are talking about, Turbo may also simply be a must.  

 

 

-Seth