Jump to content

231/252/201 useful loads


Recommended Posts

I posted a few months ago asking about performance and operating cost differences with the 231/252 and had a great discussion but this time around I'd like to ask about useful loads of each of these planes. I'm leaning more towards the 201/231 for budget reasons as others have recently mentioned. I know full well that no two, same model planes, are the same in UL. But I'd like to get a ballpark number for each. For reference, I'm still currently renting a 2000 Ovation 2 with a 1001 lb UL.  Thanks and have a great weekend. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

*Members that donate $10 or more do not see advertisements*

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I had a J and now a Bravo. I think the 201 is the most increadible airplane ever built! The perfect balance between speed and efficiency! That being said, the Bravo ain't a bad ride.

My 310 hp Eagle has 1122 lbs useful and will carry 100 gals of fuel allowing for great mission trade offs of distance vs load. 

'78 J useful load of 970.  If I'm going far and there are no mountains in the way I like to cruise at either 6500 or 7500, 2500 RPM, WOT, around 9.2 GPH (just barely LOP) getting about 157 KTAS.  With

Posted Images

Great - and then what fuel burn rate do y'all plan for say at 10-12k, 50* ROP? I get about 14.5 in the Ovation. Typically plan on 4 hours of fuel for trips which leaves about 665 lbs +/- for people and bags. Just curious to see if the lesser fuel burn equates to equal or increased available useful load on other platforms. Any of y'all in the west Texas/ eastern New Mexico region (probably a long shot)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Tx_Aggie said:

Great - and then what fuel burn rate do y'all plan for say at 10-12k, 50* ROP? I get about 14.5 in the Ovation. Typically plan on 4 hours of fuel for trips which leaves about 665 lbs +/- for people and bags. Just curious to see if the lesser fuel burn equates to equal or increased available useful load on other platforms. 

I just got my 231 so haven't had a chance to get that data yet. I'm hoping my airplane runs LOP. If so, 65% power LOP will be 10.0 GPH and 160-180 KTAS depending on altitude. If I *have* to run ROP, it should still be less than 12 GPH.

50º ROP . . . where do we start that discussion . . .

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, peevee said:

Mmmmm thats leaner than I run. I figure 13gph at 29"

Are you running 65% power or higher ?  As I wrote, I just got the airplane and immediately had to go out of town so I have little experience with this airplane so far. I was basing my estimated ROP fuel flow on the intercooler chart.

Cruise Power Chart.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know Jerry probably got the LAST Airflow Systems intercooler.  I was very interested in finding one but haven't yet.  I have a TurboPlus Intercooler in my hangar but I'm just not as interested in their product as the Airflow Systems.  I guess that's why it's still in the hangar :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tx_Aggie said:

Great - and then what fuel burn rate do y'all plan for say at 10-12k, 50* ROP? I get about 14.5 in the Ovation. Typically plan on 4 hours of fuel for trips which leaves about 665 lbs +/- for people and bags. Just curious to see if the lesser fuel burn equates to equal or increased available useful load on other platforms. Any of y'all in the west Texas/ eastern New Mexico region (probably a long shot)?

In my J I run WOT @ 8,000 ft, 2400 RPM and burn 8.9-9.1 gph. That typically trues me @ 156 kts running LOP. Can't really answer the ROP portion as I typically run LOP.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, KLRDMD said:

Are you running 65% power or higher ?  As I wrote, I just got the airplane and immediately had to go out of town so I have little experience with this airplane so far. I was basing my estimated ROP fuel flow on the intercooler chart.

Cruise Power Chart.pdf

Depends on the temp drop, closer to 75

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, daver328 said:

What year did the 2900 MTOW begin?

 

I believe it was '89 with SN 24-1686. There is documentation on the Mooney International site detailing everything about it. I believe some planes required a retrofit kit to get them to 2900.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jrwilson said:

Lol that's true. I used to have a 63 C...I liked it.  But then I didn't know the joy that is the mighty 231!

I'm with you, the 63C was nice but the 84 K is (as Tony would say) Greaaat!

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, N9201A said: '78 J with 1070 UL.

It appears to me that the older J's have a higher useful load. Why is that?

The empty weight was 1671 (at least as advertised), so in order to weigh that you have to have a bare bones plane, no engine monitor, no gps, no autopilot, etc...or overlook any mods as negligible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

'78 J useful load of 970.  If I'm going far and there are no mountains in the way I like to cruise at either 6500 or 7500, 2500 RPM, WOT, around 9.2 GPH (just barely LOP) getting about 157 KTAS.  With mountains I'm usually between 9000 and 11,000, 2500 RPM, WOT, around 8.7 GPH going around 150 TAS.

My wife does not like to sit more than about 3 hours.  At 9 GPH, plus 10 gallon reserve, plus an extra 3 gallons for the climb, I only need 40 gallons at liftoff to do that (and go 450NM).  That's 233# of 100LL.  970 - 233 = 737# of people and bags.  If I max out the baggage at 120# I can still carry 617# of people.  That's 3 big (206#) people or 4 small (154#) people.

What my wife actually now prefers to do when it's just the two of us is to sit in the back seat.  She has more leg room and can put her 'stuff' on the other seat in back.  She downloads a few movies or TV shows to her phone before we leave.  We plug the headphone out from her phone into the audio in jack in the back seat so she can hear the audio over her NC headset.  I put the intercomm on isolate so her audio isn't interrupted by ATC.  When she wants to talk to me she taps me on the shoulder and I put the intercomm back to ALL.  When she is ready to go back to watching her movie she tells me to put it back to isolate (or I could use crew too).  She's not very tall and says she can see better from the back seat too.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bob - S50 said:

'78 J useful load of 970.  If I'm going far and there are no mountains in the way I like to cruise at either 6500 or 7500, 2500 RPM, WOT, around 9.2 GPH (just barely LOP) getting about 157 KTAS.  With mountains I'm usually between 9000 and 11,000, 2500 RPM, WOT, around 8.7 GPH going around 150 TAS.

My wife does not like to sit more than about 3 hours.  At 9 GPH, plus 10 gallon reserve, plus an extra 3 gallons for the climb, I only need 40 gallons at liftoff to do that (and go 450NM).  That's 233# of 100LL.  970 - 233 = 737# of people and bags.  If I max out the baggage at 120# I can still carry 617# of people.  That's 3 big (206#) people or 4 small (154#) people.

What my wife actually now prefers to do when it's just the two of us is to sit in the back seat.  She has more leg room and can put her 'stuff' on the other seat in back.  She downloads a few movies or TV shows to her phone before we leave.  We plug the headphone out from her phone into the audio in jack in the back seat so she can hear the audio over her NC headset.  I put the intercomm on isolate so her audio isn't interrupted by ATC.  When she wants to talk to me she taps me on the shoulder and I put the intercomm back to ALL.  When she is ready to go back to watching her movie she tells me to put it back to isolate (or I could use crew too).  She's not very tall and says she can see better from the back seat too.

Probably makes the airplane a tad faster with aft CG with here back there too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


*Members that donate $10 or more do not see advertisements*



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.