Ulrimate M20J?

[PMD]

I have been gong back and fourth between buying another Tiger and jumping into a 201.  The appeal of the Tiger is incredible simplicity, very cheap and decent payload.  There ARE some nice mods available, but reality is they just don't get much faster as you pour money into them.  At best a 145 knot airplane (135 stock = which is bloody good for $80k or less!)

I know I am preaching to the converted, but the M20J simply goes faster on similar power, with similar payload - and even similar purchase price.  Where it stands out (more than the 25 knot speed advantage) is that all of the nice mods for Tigers - and a bunch more - are already STCd for the Mooney.  

My question is:  has anyone done EVERYTHING to a J model that can be done?  i.e.:  IO390,Lycon,  Lopresti cowl, Lasar cleanups, LR fuel?   What kind of numbers does such a combination produce?   If all of the promised speed increases were added in, it would be fantastic, but in my experience, this just doesn't happen.  So, what is reality?

Edited October 7, 2015 by PMD

[KSMooniac]

The IO-390 reportedly only boosts climb rate and not top speed, plus it is terribly expensive with $4k (ea) cylinders.

The fastest J I've heard of is testwest's '77 after an extreme drag reduction program along with the Top Prop. He has reported 165 KTAS @ 10 gph. That included antenna removal, pop up cooling scoop removal, low profile gear doors, smooth belly, LoPresti cowl, proper rigging, etc.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[aviatoreb]

Bennett - a mooneyspacer here - as an everything possible J - and he reports 170TAS.  He also has a everything possible paint, interior and panel.  Its stunning.

 

[carusoam]

Every aero option including the Missile package (IO550) gets you performance that is very close to top of the line current production model...

Maintaining a plane must keep you young.  It seems to work for an engineer like Bennet!

Hmmmmm,

-a-

Edited October 7, 2015 by carusoam

[Shadrach]

Every aero option including the Missile package (IO550) gets you performance that is very close to top of the line current production model...

Hmmmmm,

-a-

Is anyone making cowl mods for the Rocket/missile crowd?

[201er]

A better option than the IO390 is a turbo-normalizer. I still wouldn't get it but I know someone that has Lopresti cowl, all the mods, and normalizer. That Mooney is pretty quick I hear but still only about a 10 knot advantage. The normalizer will buy you more true airspeed with altitude than 10 extra HP.

[Shadrach]

PMD,

The tiger is without a doubt a nice little AC. However, as I alluded to in another J model thread, there's a lot of performance out there for the money. I'm dubious on the 145kt number for any tiger in level flight. A really good stock Tiger is a 130kt aircraft maybe a little better under ideal conditions. Don't limit yourself to a J, just about any 4 place Mooney bests the tiger in speed, range and payload. Tigers get the nod for egress and ingress.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Shadrach

[Bennett]

Every aero option including the Missile package (IO550) gets you performance that is very close to top of the line current production model...

Maintaining a plane must keep you young.  It seems to work for an engineer like Bennet!

Hmmmmm,

-a-

Keeps me young (sort of - I'm 80 now, but I don't feel it.) Just lucky -hardly tame living. LASAR maintains my Mooney, and they do a great job of keeping everything at optimism levels. I just pay the bills. They have managed to keep the rigging as good as I haver ever seen - even better than my prior 261 conversion. I keep a whole lot of stuff in the baggage compartment to keep the trim aft, and while I do run LOP for longer flights, I fly ROP for shorter flights - I fly Mooneys for speed, not so much for economy.

[aviatoreb]

Keeps me young (sort of - I'm 80 now, but I don't feel it.) Just lucky -hardly tame living. LASAR maintains my Mooney, and they do a great job of keeping everything at optimism levels. I just pay the bills. They have managed to keep the rigging as good as I haver ever seen - even better than my prior 261 conversion. I keep a whole lot of stuff in the baggage compartment to keep the trim aft, and while I do run LOP for longer flights, I fly ROP for shorter flights - I fly Mooneys for speed, not so much for economy.

No you aren't - I've met you!  Not a day over 58, I'd swear!

[PMD]

PMD,

The tiger is without a doubt a nice little AC. However, as I alluded to in another J model thread, there's a lot of performance out there for the money. I'm dubious on the 145kt number for any tiger in level flight. A really good stock Tiger is a 130kt aircraft maybe a little better under ideal conditions. Don't limit yourself to a J, just about any 4 place Mooney bests the tiger in speed, range and payload. Tigers get the nod for egress and ingress.

There are indeed 145knot @ 7,000' Tigers, but it costs a bit of cash and needs a lot of attention to detail to get it there.   Also helps to be light.  Your numbers are spot on for 99% of stockers.  I agree that there are few Mooneys with 360s that wouldn't walk away from almost any Tiger, but the trade off for simplicity and extreme low maintenance cost makes it a tough call.   Referring to one comment about quality:  the Tiger is hardly "cheaply made".  It is a full generation of technology ahead of riveted structures (thus why the fantastic numbers for efficiency).   Also, extremely strong.   I don't know where the Tiger runs out of structure, but the grand-Daddy (AA1 Yankee) will easily see +/-9 Gs with no permanent deformation (IIRC, about the same for Mooneys????).   I have personally ridden an AA1 into a forced landing in some pretty good size trees and walked away with a single cut from windshield fragments.  Airplane destroyed, but cabin fully in tact.

I have a strong aversion to turbochargers anywhere near a spark ignition engine.  They belong on diesels, and I will just keep waiting for a decent diesel to be out there to hang a turbo on.  The 390 thing is definitely aimed at climb for me - but also a trip through CNC porting and add exhaust to get some decent numbers.  NO IO360 ever put out 200HP with OEM exhaust, so there is some cheap(ish) climb in the exhaust.  Also, Lyc guarantees the io-390 at 210 HP INSTALLED.

I agree with another comment that it is far cheaper to trade up then go into big mods.  Problem is with any of this stuff, where does one stop?   That is why I was sort of curious bout what the optimum 4 banger would be.

Edited October 8, 2015 by PMD

[201er]

What exactly is your purpose? And why do you want to shell out maybe double the price for a performance increase of 10% at best?

[Shadrach]

There are indeed 145knot @ 7,000' Tigers, but it costs a bit of cash and needs a lot of attention to detail to get it there.   Also helps to be light.  Your numbers are spot on for 99% of stockers.  I agree that there are few Mooneys with 360s that wouldn't walk away from almost any Tiger, but the trade off for simplicity and extreme low maintenance cost makes it a tough call.   Referring to one comment about quality:  the Tiger is hardly "cheaply made".  It is a full generation of technology ahead of riveted structures (thus why the fantastic numbers for efficiency).   Also, extremely strong.   I don't know where the Tiger runs out of structure, but the grand-Daddy (AA1 Yankee) will easily see +/-9 Gs with no permanent deformation (IIRC, about the same for Mooneys????).   I have personally ridden an AA1 into a forced landing in some pretty good size trees and walked away with a single cut from windshield fragments.  Airplane destroyed, but cabin fully in tact.

I have a strong aversion to turbochargers anywhere near a spark ignition engine.  They belong on diesels, and I will just keep waiting for a decent diesel to be out there to hang a turbo on.  The 390 thing is definitely aimed at climb for me - but also a trip through CNC porting and add exhaust to get some decent numbers.  NO IO360 ever put out 200HP with OEM exhaust, so there is some cheap(ish) climb in the exhaust.  Also, Lyc guarantees the io-390 at 210 HP INSTALLED.

I agree with another comment that it is far cheaper to trade up then go into big mods.  Problem is with any of this stuff, where does one stop?   That is why I was sort of curious bout what the optimum 4 banger would be.

I think John Breda has the ultimate/optimum 4 banger in my book, but I've yet to see it in person.

http://mooneyspace.com/gallery/album/13507-m20f-196839s-album/

It's modern in all the ways I like, and it's simple in all the ways I like. We can agree to disagree on turbochargers, however, I think you'll be on the wrong side of history as almost every major auto manufacturer is going to small displacement boosted gas engines.  Aviation turbos have their challenges (some more than others), but will give good service when properly operated. 

I have no reason to doubt your honesty when it comes to 145kt tigers, I'd like to know what changes were made to pick up nearly 15kts.

[Alan Fox]

If you are going to buy a Mooney , I would not go back farther than a J at this point , the fleet is getting riddled with corrosion and wet wing problems , also try to get at least a 78 J as it has higher flap speeds etc and is the place to start , You wont need any aerodynamic clean up on the J it is ready to go out of the box , although the Lopresti cowls look cool (no pun ) they are not good as far as value verses performance reward ,Also don't discount the Bonanzas , if fuel economy is not in your highest priority you would want to look at the Beech product.....The best part of the Beech and The Mooney is there are parts and stcs galore for these planes.....I am currently doing a C182RG project , and parts are not easy on this plane....I have been spoiled by the Mooneys and Beeches as there are "Parts a plenty" on the used second hand market...  

[bonal]

I've always liked the Tiger and a 160hp Yankee would be a fun airplane to fly.  The fellow I share a hangar with has a nice Tiger and he gets around 140 knots with a new top end and prop. I don't agree with the comment that you should stay away from an older model Mooney if they have been taken care of the things like corrosion should not be an issue and since I have bladders tank leakage is a non issue as well. If you don't need a back seat and for 80 grand I would find a retractable Lance or Glass air and then you can get over 200 knots out of your 180hp. Even a conventional geared Glass air will go 200 but that's an experimental and a different animal all together. I know my C is an honest 145 knot airplane. Not really sure why the Tiger has such a high price point compared to an E or C but that's the market. When I look at the 2 together in the hangar I can say this much my Mooney looks like a much more refined aircraft than the Grumman. And as for the E models I'm pretty sure those guys beat me by at least 5 to 10 knots. If I could have afforded a 50 thousand model an E would be sweet. But as I have pointed out I like the simplicity of my carburetor but that's another thread.

[PMD]

201er:   You are asking the hard (right) question.  Economical, range & speed for 2 place (occasionally 3).  Want current panel (so you can guess that the price of the airframe is actually secondary concern).  This will likely be my last personal transport airplane, so I don't want to compromise.  Trying to retire from daily grind (where I have had to drag literally tons of equipment from project to project - so have not used airplane for personal business much over last few decades),  I do the same thing with cars and trucks:  I will buy what I want, modify the crap out of it to be EXACTLY what I want, and never sell it off (assuming I get it "right").  The upfitting and/or mods always far exceeds the price of the original machine.   J seems to be a good starting point.  We may end up with a new facility in the Caribbean, thus the extreme range requirement.

Shadrach:  I have spent years in another life fixing mickey-mouse aviation turbo installations, and just don't have the desire to waste any time fixing junk.  Yes, the automotive gasser guys are FINALLY starting to get their turbocharger act together *after a half century of ineptitude), but the level of engineering is light years beyond what ANY aviation OEM can afford.  Then, there is the cultural side:  as an engine builder, I am usually making something involved in extremely short competitive events, and the whole thing is over and done by the time a turbocharger can spool up.  Also won't work for many class rules.  It is also (from my past) admission you can't build an engine properly, so use turbo to try to get the power that is beyond your skill level.   While I may live and work in a framework of ultimately logical decisions, my personal transport has a huge emotional content.

BTW:  Mr. Breda's airplane is absolutely beautiful.   I have high regard for people who will put that kind of effort into getting what they want.  I just came back from helping (engine work - Walter 601D)  one of my close friends who at 72 is building (hours flown off, now final stages of tweeking floats, rigging, etc) his last (of 12 original designs) airplane.  He has made the largest amateur design/build project on the continent (and possibly the world), all by his own hand, in a remote cabin in the bush with about as many tools as the average home handyman has kicking around.  These guys are my heros, thanks for sharing.

n74795:  I hear you.  My struggle is between buying a later J and modifying it to latest standards vs. just go and buy something new enough to have it all.  Comes out to about the same price.  The buy and mod thing requires existing STCs, as I just don't have the time to develop what I want myself any more.   I am obsessed with efficiency,  Mooney is pretty much the sweet spot for "2+2" personal tourer - unless someone finally gets the diesel thing right (and then the Mooney airframes are STILL in my sights).  My affection for AA5B is when I owned my last Beech (3NM = D18S) my Tiger was a zero maint hassle airplane in a world of very high maint equip.  It always seemed to me the purpose of the Tiger was to bring parts to all of the B/C/P spam cans that I had to fix.

Bonal:   One of my genav buddies had just pointed me at a 160HP AA1A  taildragger who's owner just lost his medical.  I have no real use for the airplane, but, as you point out, SUPER COOL RIDE.  If I could ever afford a pure toy, it would be on my list (the guy who pointed it out has 10...count em...TEN frigging toy planes!!!! so couldn't understand why I wouldn't just run over there and scoop that one up).   I am now coming back to the one personal airplane mode, and airframe age/condition is very much a concern - but easy to deal with.  Having been around the homebuilt and factory airplanes for a very long time, I could not buy and fly someone else's work.  Even some certified airplanes don't come close to what I would trust with my family on board.  The Grumman (actually American) vs. Mooney "refined" thing is another subject.  What American Aviation and later Roy LoPresti did with Jim Bede's brilliant design concept for a SIMPLE airplane just reeks of what is my standard for good engineering:  add simplicity and lightness with technology and materials use.  As you might expect, Colin Chapman is one of my automotive idols.  BTW: on the maint side:  it is impossible to waste time and money maintaining something that just isn't there - thus the appeal (and reason for the high price) of AA5B and may AG5B.

to all:  Your discussions are serving very well to get me focused on best solution.   IF (and that one is a pretty big IF) I can figure out how to swing the cash, pursuit of "ultimate" might well mean just buying a much newer airplane with a larger engine and pulling back the power (which for me often means head for middle altitudes and start sucking on the nose bag).  Otherwise, a J bought "as is" may turn out to be a starting point.

 

 

[bonal]

Seems like you already know the answers to your own questions. IMHO the big difference in selling price is the desire to have a fairly fast fixed gear / prop airplane. As we all know complex means greater expense but I stand by my comment about the 2 birds in the hangar. Mooney's are beautiful machines with some incredible engineering. Don't misunderstand I like the Tiger. As for Chapman also one of my favorites his designes were also noted for being some of the most dangerous cars on the track.

[ArtVandelay]

PMD:

I did what you described : bought the 2nd lowest priced post 77J, with old tired avionics and interior and 1600 hr engine and have updated it to get exactly what I want. This is my first and last airplane.

[chrisk]

201er:   You are asking the hard (right) question.  Economical, range & speed for 2 place (occasionally 3).  Want current panel (so you can guess that the price of the airframe is actually secondary concern).  This will likely be my last personal transport airplane, so I don't want to compromise.  Trying to retire from daily grind (where I have had to drag literally tons of equipment from project to project - so have not used airplane for personal business much over last few decades),  I do the same thing with cars and trucks:  I will buy what I want, modify the crap out of it to be EXACTLY what I want, and never sell it off (assuming I get it "right").  The upfitting and/or mods always far exceeds the price of the original machine.   J seems to be a good starting point.  We may end up with a new facility in the Caribbean, thus the extreme range requirement.

201er can probably give you some good examples of extreme range flying in a J.  And a J will probably have the lowest operating costs.

And if you want speed in a non-turbo plane and can go to a 6 cylinder, look at a M20S.   It's probably a little above your price range, but it might be worth the stretch.  And if your willing to go turbo, look at a rocket conversion.  It's not a mickey-mouse install and has a great reputation.  --and the best glide ratio with an engine out. 

 

[KSMooniac]

A J flying LOP can do 1000 NM with standard tanks. With the Monroy tanks it will go much further of course...

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[Andy95W]

It sounds like he oughta be looking for a Missile conversion with Monroy long range tanks.  For extreme efficiency,  a 252.

It sure is easy helping somebody else spend their money!

[PMD]

I have been starting to come around to the general reasoning of going big engine and just power back.  Monroy tanks would sure be a big plus.

HOWEVER: where this all started (and started getting out of hand) is having a relatively CHEAP 2+2 airplane to avoid flying what will be corporate transport when Grandma and Grandpa are going to visit kids or just going someplace warm.  Complicated by possibility of using it when I go alone to other locations where we do business.  The ultimate version of anything (and a post-2006 Ovation comes REALLY close right out of the box) is WAY OVER BUDGET in the short term (think buy basic and modify over a few years).  Thus the J model as possible starting point (and alternative to Tiger in that capacity).

That is where the road ahead through developing a J is new territory to me - have not been following the world of Mooney madness.   BTW: an Ovation with Monroy tank mod is a single place airplane when fully fueled.

One R = 3 Js, but 1J + 1 perfect panel + full aero & power mods happens to cost almost exactly one R.  In this case, all about the timing (without getting into a discussion of certified electronic ignition)

[201er]

Just get a missile

[ArtVandelay]

Grandma and grandpa are not going use the extra tankage, unless they already wear adult diapers

I'd plan on 3-4 hour legs, a J will cover 450-600nm, the missile will cover 540-720nm...is that extra distance worth it? Guess it depends on how far you have to go.

[carusoam]

1) Grandmas don't like cheap when it comes to vehicles. 'Cheap 2+2’...

2) Standard O tanks are about 100gallons. Enough to fly from NJ to FL.

3) How often are you taking grandma and how good is she for flying that many hours?

4) Adding another 30 gallons is great if you want to extend the flight for another two hours.  But you can't complain when the UL only covers the pilot.  30 gal is the approximate weight of a human being in aviation.

5) There isn't a family on planet earth that wants to sit in any vehicle that long, even if it is going to Disneyworld.

6) Stopping halfway is the usual plan for my family of four.

Selecting a plane is going to be a challenge. There isn't enough useful load or speed or efficiency in any one plane.

It is going to be challenging to get anyone to commit to spending $200k on a Long Body without the previous experience of a similar plane.

The M20E is my outlook for post retirement Mooney travel.  Consider that, lower cost.  Not cheap. Because having all the updates to keep grandma comfortable in IMC is not inexpensive. The +2 part requires some detailed checking based on the size and comfort levels of all four people.

Thoughts that come to mind,

-a-

-a-

Edited October 9, 2015 by carusoam

[gsengle]

Consider an early ovation! A J is beautiful but the extra speed is nice for longer flights... I personally wouldn't need to see the need to upgrade any ovation panel that had a 430/530 and the king package...

I only throw that out since you said something about post 2006 ovations... Make sure you consider the WAAS issue...

Glass is pretty but adds next to no utility/capability and there are lots of good upgrade options. Get the Bluetooth link with AHARS for the Garmin and you have a glass panel with flight plan transfer on your iPad for not much money.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk