Tx_Aggie Posted September 9, 2016 Report Posted September 9, 2016 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. Quote
KLRDMD Posted September 9, 2016 Report Posted September 9, 2016 I have 892 lb on my 1985 231. Leather interior, built-in oxygen, intercooler, lots of avionics, etc. Quote
Oldguy Posted September 9, 2016 Report Posted September 9, 2016 I have 876 lb in my 1984 J with the 2740 MGW. A couple of years later with the 2900 MGW would have been great. Quote
Marcopolo Posted September 9, 2016 Report Posted September 9, 2016 1981 231, 969# UL, 4 place oxygen, cloth interior, full old fashion radio stack, no intercooler! Quote
Tx_Aggie Posted September 9, 2016 Author Report Posted September 9, 2016 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)? Quote
KLRDMD Posted September 9, 2016 Report Posted September 9, 2016 On 9/9/2016 at 4:16 PM, 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. Expand 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 . . . Quote
peevee Posted September 9, 2016 Report Posted September 9, 2016 (edited) On 9/9/2016 at 4:48 PM, KLRDMD said: If I *have* to run ROP, it should still be less than 12 GPH. Expand Mmmmm thats leaner than I run. I figure 13gph at 29" Edited September 9, 2016 by peevee 1 Quote
KLRDMD Posted September 9, 2016 Report Posted September 9, 2016 On 9/9/2016 at 4:54 PM, peevee said: Mmmmm thats leaner than I run. I figure 13gph at 29" Expand 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.pdfFetching info... Quote
carusoam Posted September 9, 2016 Report Posted September 9, 2016 Nice chart for saving into the download section...? I haven't figured out how to do that yet... Best regards, -a- Quote
M20Kid Posted September 9, 2016 Report Posted September 9, 2016 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 :) Quote
Oldguy Posted September 9, 2016 Report Posted September 9, 2016 On 9/9/2016 at 4:16 PM, 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)? Expand 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. Quote
jrwilson Posted September 9, 2016 Report Posted September 9, 2016 12.4 - 12.7 gph at 28" mp. 84 231 w intercooler. 170 + kts at 10k, increasing tas with altitude Quote
Mike A Posted September 9, 2016 Report Posted September 9, 2016 936 lb UL 1980 231 w/ Aspen PFD, 430W, JPI 730, leather Quote
peevee Posted September 9, 2016 Report Posted September 9, 2016 On 9/9/2016 at 5:17 PM, 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.pdfFetching info... Expand Depends on the temp drop, closer to 75 Quote
Oldguy Posted September 9, 2016 Report Posted September 9, 2016 On 9/9/2016 at 9:38 PM, daver328 said: What year did the 2900 MTOW begin? Expand 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. 1 Quote
jrwilson Posted September 9, 2016 Report Posted September 9, 2016 On 9/9/2016 at 10:19 PM, daver328 said: I have 974 in our C! Expand Yeah, if I drop my fuel load down to what a C carries, I've got more UL than that... Quote
jrwilson Posted September 10, 2016 Report Posted September 10, 2016 On 9/9/2016 at 11:49 PM, daver328 said: It's ok ... Not everybody can have a C! :-) Expand 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! 1 Quote
Pritch Posted September 10, 2016 Report Posted September 10, 2016 On 9/10/2016 at 12:17 AM, 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! Expand I'm with you, the 63C was nice but the 84 K is (as Tony would say) Greaaat! 1 Quote
gsxrpilot Posted September 10, 2016 Report Posted September 10, 2016 1987 K 252 - 800 UL built in O2 bottle, and two of everything. I hope to clean out the panel and recover some UL. I've only run ROP so far. 28" 2500rpm = 13.5gph 180 kts TAS @12K ft. Quote
Tx_Aggie Posted September 10, 2016 Author Report Posted September 10, 2016 On 9/10/2016 at 1:32 AM, N9201A said: '78 J with 1070 UL. Expand It appears to me that the older J's have a higher useful load. Why is that? Quote
carusoam Posted September 10, 2016 Report Posted September 10, 2016 TX-Aggie, Because, structurally they could. Some earlier ones can be updated using an STC. The details can be searched. There has been plenty of conversation to cover it. Best regards, -a- Quote
ArtVandelay Posted September 10, 2016 Report Posted September 10, 2016 On 9/10/2016 at 3:24 AM, Tx_Aggie said: On 9/10/2016 at 1:32 AM, N9201A said: 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. Quote
Bob - S50 Posted September 10, 2016 Report Posted September 10, 2016 '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. 3 Quote
aviatoreb Posted September 10, 2016 Report Posted September 10, 2016 On 9/10/2016 at 12:53 PM, 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. Expand Probably makes the airplane a tad faster with aft CG with here back there too. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.