M20J Speed Improvement?

[jetdriven]

3 hours ago, carusoam said:

 

I have a friend with a Dakota which is the 235HP version of that. His has the wheel pants etc and if you thrash it, you may see 138 KTAS. And his is not a slow Dakota. 

Edited January 24, 2018 by jetdriven

[ArtVandelay]

How are you getting 145KTAS out of an Archer? That's the same speed as my Mooney, same engine, I've got constant speed, lighter, smaller frontal area, and retractable gear. The 180hp Cherokees' I've flown will barely crack 120, on a good day

Would not be the first time someone confused mph and knots or ground speed with TAS. I’ll bet if you check flightaware history it won’t be close. Check the POH, ignore claims posted on the internet is my philosophy.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, jetdriven said:

I can do around 172 KTAS all day but it’s low altitude, usually turbulent at that high of an IAS, and terrible for fuel. But 172 KTAS and  16 GPH is the standard Bonanza profile so I can do that if I want to.

I’m not sure how it’s harming engine life. It is running at 2700 RPM, ROP and it’s 330 CHT. Like every takeoff but cooler since the IAS is so high. I think it likes it. 

I’d love to see a few pictures of that feat!

Clarence

[N201MKTurbo]

I remember doing a few full power runs in my old M20F and got 168 KTS TAS so getting 174 from a J doesn't seem unreasonable. 

[Piloto]

On my way to find a low cost solution for anti-ice I found a speed enhancer. To reduce the possibility of ice formation on the wings I applied Rain-X water repellent to the wings leading edge and top surface. To my surprise I found 160kts TAS at 10,000ft/2400rpm on my way to KAGC before it would be 155kts. I checked the static alternate air but it was closed as it should be. The speed reading was consistent all the time and cross checked with the ground speed and winds aloft. The only thing I did different was the application of Rain-X. Never got ice but temps were well below 0C. Try it and let us know.

José

[Shadrach]

15 hours ago, Curtis said:

So, doesn't this discussion beg the question............Why the 201?   It doesn't sound like anyone is breaking the 200 barrier except for Jet Driven.  I fly an archer and can get 140 to 145mph out of but want to move to a m20j for the 40 knot jump.  It doesn't sound like I'll get much more than a 35 knot jump.   

I’ve fixed the numbers and suffixes in your post for you...

Edited January 24, 2018 by Shadrach

[aviatoreb]

10 hours ago, jetdriven said:

I have a friend with a Dakota which is the 235HP version of that. His has the wheel pants etc and if you thrash it, you may see 138 KTAS. And his is not a slow Dakota. 

There was a fellow Gadabout Gaddis who used to fly around the country in a 235HP cherokee before I was old enough to watch his fishing tv show.  He used to fly around with a big old-school tv camera and a filming man, and lots of fishing gear.   I read his book- the opening scene is airplane...

http://www.gadaboutgaddis.com/

There's even an airport in Maine named after him: http://www.airnav.com/airport/ME08

[ArtVandelay]

On my way to find a low cost solution for anti-ice I found a speed enhancer. To reduce the possibility of ice formation on the wings I applied Rain-X water repellent to the wings leading edge and top surface. To my surprise I found 160kts TAS at 10,000ft/2400rpm on my way to KAGC before it would be 155kts. I checked the static alternate air but it was closed as it should be. The speed reading was consistent all the time and cross checked with the ground speed and winds aloft. The only thing I did different was the application of Rain-X. Never got ice but temps were well below 0C. Try it and let us know.
José

Have you ever tried just waxing it, I would guess you would see identical results.

[N601RX]

This simple mod must be good for at least 30 KNOTS, maybe more.

[jetdriven]

12 hours ago, Raptor05121 said:

How are you getting 145KTAS out of an Archer? That's the same speed as my Mooney, same engine, I've got constant speed, lighter, smaller frontal area, and retractable gear. The 180hp Cherokees' I've flown will barely crack 120, on a good day

My boss’s Piper arrow IV with an IO360C1C6 (200hp) does 138 KTAS and that’s near book speed.  It also has 20 more HP and retractable gear than an Archer.  It’s a common thing for an owner to inflate the performance numbers of his plane 10-15 knots while discounting the other’s plane by an equal amount, then declaring them the same speed. 

I was at Oshkosh a few years ago and a gentleman sitting at our lunch table started bragging on his Cardinal RG. It’s a fine plane, huge cabin all that, but I’ve got a hundred hour or more in them and they’re 135 knot planes. Same motor same prop and all that big cabin and two doors and gear wells drag has to go somewhere.  He is going on and on about the superiority of the type, and then he said “it’s the  the same speed as a Mooney”.  A minute later he asked what kind of plane we had, a 201 I replied.  I added that we just finished the Airventure Cup race and we did 170 something knots over 450 miles. No tail wind was ever found that offset the climb. They start the timing from the departure end of the runway and my plane cant climb for shit. And it’s verified on several races at 170 plus. He turned kinda pale and quit bragging on the cardinal RG. I was just eating, wasn’t looking for a fight. But  you can insult my mother but you never mess with a man’s vehicles. 

[EricJ]

15 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

My boss’s Piper arrow IV with an IO360C1C6 (200hp) does 138 KTAS and that’s near book speed.  It also has 20 more HP and retractable gear than an Archer.  It’s a common thing for an owner to inflate the performance numbers of his plane 10-15 knots while discounting the other’s plane by an equal amount, then declaring them the same speed. 

This.   The Arrow II I used to fly was typically 135 kts cruise.   My buddy's 1963 Cherokee 180 with updated cowl and lots of speed mods gets 120-125kts typical, with 122 kts being pretty common and that's cruising around at max power.   He's thought about upgrading to an Arrow but I keep telling him his Cherokee is fast for its type and he'll only pick up 10-15 kts and lose a few hundred pounds in useful load.    I'm a bit envious of that Cherokee as it's a damned simple little airplane that is cheap and reliable and can haul a lot of crap around fairly comfortably.   The only real disadvantage is it's a bit slower.   

[jetdriven]

Yeah the 180HP Cherokee extracts maximum performance from the horsepower it has while maintaining a very simple design.  A straight leg cessna cardinal is similar. The retractable versions of each add speed but at much greater cost. 

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

This.   The Arrow II I used to fly was typically 135 kts cruise.   My buddy's 1963 Cherokee 180 with updated cowl and lots of speed mods gets 120-125kts typical, with 122 kts being pretty common and that's cruising around at max power.   He's thought about upgrading to an Arrow but I keep telling him his Cherokee is fast for its type and he'll only pick up 10-15 kts and lose a few hundred pounds in useful load.    I'm a bit envious of that Cherokee as it's a damned simple little airplane that is cheap and reliable and can haul a lot of crap around fairly comfortably.   The only real disadvantage is it's a bit slower.   

Does it have better payload than your J?

[EricJ]

2 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Does it have better payload than your J?

Quite a bit, yeah.

[Shadrach]

Just now, EricJ said:

Quite a bit, yeah.

Can you post approximate numbers? I am curious as to whether his bird is exceptionally light or yours is on the heavy side.

[Shadrach]

2 minutes ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

My old PA28-180 and my J have almost the same useful loads at around 960 pounds. Both are probably fatter than average, though. My J because of it's bladders and my old Piper because of all of the fairings that were added on. 

That's closer to my real world experience with a PA28.  Mid-body Mooneys seem to have an empty weight variance of ~200lbs depending on equipment.

[EricJ]

26 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Can you post approximate numbers? I am curious as to whether his bird is exceptionally light or yours is on the heavy side.

His:
Useful Load:  1100 lbs

Payload w/full fuel:  810 lbs

Mine:

Useful Load: 975 lbs

Payload w/full fuel:  591

A significant difference is that the Cherokee holds 48 gals usable and the J tanks are 64 gal.   So if you loaded the J with the same fuel, it'd have a 687 lb payload.   Still 120 lbs less than the Cherokee, but not enormously different.

My J is a little porky though, with a 1765 lb empty weight.

I've made the trip from here (Phoenix) to SoDak in both airplanes, though, and because I don't want to spend 6+ hours with no break in any airplane, we make the same stop in the middle somewhere (like Canyonlands/Moab).   The extra fuel in the Mooney is nice to not have to refuel sometimes, e.g., make a round trip without refueling.

I like my J a lot and have no plans to replace it, but it's interesting how much performance the PA28-180 gets with such a simple, plebeian platform.  

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by EricJ

[peevee]

surely someone else has mentioned the K is the speed upgrade to the J

[jetdriven]

52 minutes ago, peevee said:

surely someone else has mentioned the K is the speed upgrade to the J

As long as you fly above 9-10k feet. 

[peevee]

2 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

As long as you fly above 9-10k feet. 

yeah, I generally like to fly above terrain, not into it.

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

His:
Useful Load:  1100 lbs

Payload w/full fuel:  810 lbs

Mine:

Useful Load: 975 lbs

Payload w/full fuel:  591

A significant difference is that the Cherokee holds 48 gals usable and the J tanks are 64 gal.   So if you loaded the J with the same fuel, it'd have a 687 lb payload.   Still 120 lbs less than the Cherokee, but not enormously different.

My J is a little porky though, with a 1765 lb empty weight.

I've made the trip from here (Phoenix) to SoDak in both airplanes, though, and because I don't want to spend 6+ hours with no break in any airplane, we make the same stop in the middle somewhere (like Canyonlands/Moab).   The extra fuel in the Mooney is nice to not have to refuel sometimes, e.g., make a round trip without refueling.

I like my J a lot and have no plans to replace it, but it's interesting how much performance the PA28-180 gets with such a simple, plebeian platform.  

 

I like to look at fuel required for a trip, not FF payload as it tells you very little.  There are masochists that like spending more than 5hrs in a small plane, but I am not one of them.   I agree the PA28 is a capable and uncomplicated platform.  It's also quite rare that one has a significant payload advantage over any Mooney.  Your buddy's PA28 has a 40lbs more useful than my bird, but after 3 hours in cruise at similar fuel burns I will be 100 miles ahead of him.  He's going to need about 43 gals to 450nm giving him 842lbs of payload.  To do the same trip with reserves I need 40 leaving me 820lbs for the payload.   So while he can take 22lbs more in the cabin, he'll be in the hour for almost a full hour longer and burn more fuel.  Indeed it's an impressive performance for a little piper, but hardly worthy of much envy from a Mooney owner.  The above is most favorable to the PA28. As the distance increases, the numbers get worse and worse for the little piper.

Edited January 24, 2018 by Shadrach

[Shadrach]

16 minutes ago, peevee said:

yeah, I generally like to fly above terrain, not into it.

Here in the lowlands, cruising at anything under 6000' the two 231s I am familiar with run <150kts. 

[EricJ]

 

36 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

The above is most favorable to the PA28. As the distance increases, the numbers get worse and worse for the little piper.

3 hours ago, EricJ said:

The only real disadvantage is it's a bit slower.   

Yup.

[Shadrach]

3 hours ago, EricJ said:

   The only real disadvantage is it's a bit slower.   

It's not just speed.  500NM is about the max range with reserves for a PA28.  They're not great climber's either.  Pretty good gradient because they achieve both best rate and angle at low speeds but ROC is not much to be impressed with and deteriorates considerably faster than a Mooney.  A good C model could probably do loops around it in the climb above 6000'.

[peevee]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

Here in the lowlands, cruising at anything under 6000' the two 231s I am familiar with run <150kts. 

Mmmmno, they run quicker than that down low.