M20J vs. M20R comparison

[XXX]

So for you that have jumped from the IO360 to any of the big block Mooneys, how is the transition? Did it require additional training (other than the h.p endorsement)?

Also, is a turboed "small block" any more capable than the large engines up high? How about maintenance between an TIO-360 and the IO-550, longevity, etc?

Thanks in advance for your comments,

Steve

[Ftlausa]

I just moved from a J to an Ovation 3, and there are definitely differences.  I loved my J for its handling and efficiency.  I love the Ovation 3' for its power and air conditioning (live in Florida).  The Ovation is definitely not as efficient, and it is noticeably heavier on the controls at higher IAS.  But as Don said, if you are flying it correctly, the extra control input should not be an issue.  As for the reduced efficiency, I can accept that for the better climb rate and extra speed.  .       

[Ftlausa]

Steve, I thought the transition was pretty easy from the J to Ovation.  Under 10 hours of flight time in the O3 and the differences are fading for me already.  Engine management is different, with power changes needed to be more subtle in the O3.  Perhaps I am an anomaly, but landing the O3 has not been an issue.  Nose stays off just fine if you have it trimmed properly.  I had some pretty strong cross winds yesterday, and the O3 handled them better than the J.    

 

 

 

[kevinw]

I love my J but I have to admit reading this thread really makes me want to step up to long body. The Ovation would be perfect for me as I don't need a turbo. It would be really nice to quickly climb up to 12K feet and enjoy the speed, smooth air, etc. I can do it in my J but it's a workout. OK, back to reality...I'm keeping what I have...for now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MHemperly]

11 hours ago, carusoam said:

Job, if you let all the secrets out....

Post a photo of the VSI just after T/O if you can (or dare).

Prices of Mooney Missiles are going to climb.  

(This is meant to be humor, but the 300hp engine matched to a Mid body Mooney has tremendous capabilities. Funny thing... Actual climb rate most likely exceeds the VSI's capability) 

Best regards,

-a-

I've had the pleasure of riding in one, impressive to say the least! 

Mike

[Jerry 5TJ]

M20J in comparison with M20R:

The larger panel on the Ovation has room for lots more goodies. 

 

[Tx_Aggie]

49 minutes ago, Chupacabra said:

So for you that have jumped from the IO360 to any of the big block Mooneys, how is the transition? Did it require additional training (other than the h.p endorsement)?

Also, is a turboed "small block" any more capable than the large engines up high? How about maintenance between an TIO-360 and the IO-550, longevity, etc?

Thanks in advance for your comments,

Steve

It took me about 7-8 hours dual time to get comfortable, mostly with the approaches. However, I was coming from an 182rg, so not quite apples to appples. The biggest difference I remember from the 201 a few weeks ago however was that on final approach, when you drop full flaps, the nose wants to drop like a rock. I compensate by trimming up the moment I flip the switch to full flaps. If you don't, you'll be behind the airplane. Also 80 KIAS over the numbers is a magical term. If I am 81+ I float halfway down the runway, under 75 I sink like a rock. The trickiest thing is to manage the power settings for a smooth final approach to landing. But like anything else in flying, once you become competent in that it becomes fun. 

Also at 11,000' my EDM830 shows a typical 59% power with full manifold pressure and 2400 RPM. That equals about 165 hp. If I am thinking correctly, a turbo K can get 75% power at the same altitude with a resulting 158 hp. Similar performance at those altitudes, however more consistent for the turbo as altitudes increase. Lesser available power for the N/A Ovation as altitude increases. 

Edited January 9, 2017 by Tx_Aggie

[M016576]

1 hour ago, Chupacabra said:

So for you that have jumped from the IO360 to any of the big block Mooneys, how is the transition? Did it require additional training (other than the h.p endorsement)?

Also, is a turboed "small block" any more capable than the large engines up high? How about maintenance between an TIO-360 and the IO-550, longevity, etc?

Thanks in advance for your comments,

Steve

Technically, there is no FAA requirement for additional training, but, depending on your previous experience, it may be wise to seek a CFI with experience in what you're transitioning into to at least chat with, if not fly with you once or twice.  That goes for pretty much any part 91 "transition"... single or multi engine (assuming you have the ratings already).

Edited January 9, 2017 by M016576

[larryb]

Every time somebody posts their speed/GPH figures I calculate out the NMPG. I had always thought the Ovation to be more efficient than the Bravo. But when I do these NMPG calculations it almost always comes out in the 12 to 13 NMPG range for both long bodies. Perhaps the Ovation is a bit more efficient, but not by much.

[donkaye]

25 minutes ago, larryb said:

 But when I do these NMPG calculations it almost always comes out in the 12 to 13 NMPG range for both long bodies.

That's pretty much where it always is.

[donkaye]

1 hour ago, M016576 said:

Technically, there is no FAA requirement for additional training, but, depending on your previous experience, it may be wise to seek a CFI with experience in what you're transitioning into to at least chat with, if not fly with you once or twice.  That goes for pretty much any part 91 "transition"... single or multi engine (assuming you have the ratings already).

A Boeing 767 Captain was wise enough to get 8 hours of Bravo training from me.  That is pretty much the minimum time one MUST get in transitioning to a higher performance airplane--and that presumes instrument competency going into the training.

 

[aviatoreb]

2 hours ago, Tx_Aggie said:

Also at 11,000' my EDM830 shows a typical 59% power with full manifold pressure and 2400 RPM. That equals about 165 hp. If I am thinking correctly, a turbo K can get 75% power at the same altitude with a resulting 158 hp. Similar performance at those altitudes, however more consistent for the turbo as altitudes increase. Lesser available power for the N/A Ovation as altitude increases. 

What is the fuel burn on a standard M20K at 75%/158hp?

Here is my guess - the Rocket is probably 1 or 2gph gal worse than an original M20k, and a Missile similarly than an original M20J. In the following sense.  I can produce 158hp with my rocket.  ANd if I do that is 158/305=51% power.  That is slightly below the power-settings chart that is provided by rocket engineering, which has its lowest setting published at 55%.  But as long as it is not too cold out, lest the engine operate too cold, I see no problem to operate at 51%.  If I do, I expect that now we are looking at the same airframe, and the same horsepower, so it should be pretty close to the same speed.  Only a tad slower because the rocket is a tad heavier.

Now to operate at 51% I would expect I will use a tad more fuel due to the mechanical inefficiency of banging 6 big cylinders vs banging 6 small cylinders (for the tsio520 rocket vs the tsio360 original m20k) - or 6 vs 4 if talking J's.    This is why I say 1 or 2 gallons - as the outcome for my rough guesstimate arithmetic using "a tad bit" of an adjustment in two parameters both in the same direction of requiring a tad bit more fuel.  Believe me - I am a math professor and so I am well qualified as I say a tad bit more or less all the time.

So I have tried this many times, and sure enough I see fuel flow numbers a tad bit higher (1 or 2 gal) at the kind of speeds the original k would do.  I read once somewhere, that a rocket or missile will do m20k or M20k resp fuel burns on original model speeds.  My experience is that is roughly correct but a tad bit worse.

Now here's the problem - I like to go fast, so more often than not - unless I am loitering and sight seeing, I don't have the patience and I will go faster - and burn more.  But there you go - I have the option.  I thought when I got her, that I would save more fuel than I am being slow when I don't need to go fast, and sure enough I don't usually go around at published max cruise but I do usually go much faster than 51%.

My guess is that an ovation would roughly fit into this guesstimate arithmetic and if slowed down to M20J speed will not be too much different in fuel burn - although now the shape of the airplane is also changed (longer) so a third adjustment in a tad bit more is needed.

As far as cost, isn't the TSIO360 pretty much comparable to repair/overhaul/etc as a TSIO520nb?  ANd besides that, the airframes are the very same airframe so costs are the same - other than maybe the pucks probably need to be changed more often.

[donkaye]

1 hour ago, M016576 said:

Technically, there is no FAA requirement for additional training, but, depending on your previous experience, it may be wise to seek a CFI with experience in what you're transitioning into to at least chat with, if not fly with you once or twice.  That goes for pretty much any part 91 "transition"... single or multi engine (assuming you have the ratings already).

Not true if you haven't gotten a High Performance Endorsement previously.

[Tx_Aggie]

11 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

What is the fuel burn on a standard M20K at 75%/158hp?

Here is my guess - the Rocket is probably 1 or 2gph gal worse than an original M20k, and a Missile similarly than an original M20J. In the following sense.  I can produce 158hp with my rocket.  ANd if I do that is 158/305=51% power.  That is slightly below the power-settings chart that is provided by rocket engineering, which has its lowest setting published at 55%.  But as long as it is not too cold out, lest the engine operate too cold, I see no problem to operate at 51%.  If I do, I expect that now we are looking at the same airframe, and the same horsepower, so it should be pretty close to the same speed.  Only a tad slower because the rocket is a tad heavier.

Now to operate at 51% I would expect I will use a tad more fuel due to the mechanical inefficiency of banging 6 big cylinders vs banging 6 small cylinders (for the tsio520 rocket vs the tsio360 original m20k) - or 6 vs 4 if talking J's.    This is why I say 1 or 2 gallons - as the outcome for my rough guesstimate arithmetic using "a tad bit" of an adjustment in two parameters both in the same direction of requiring a tad bit more fuel.  Believe me - I am a math professor and so I am well qualified as I say a tad bit more or less all the time.

So I have tried this many times, and sure enough I see fuel flow numbers a tad bit higher (1 or 2 gal) at the kind of speeds the original k would do.  I read once somewhere, that a rocket or missile will do m20k or M20k resp fuel burns on original model speeds.  My experience is that is roughly correct but a tad bit worse.

Now here's the problem - I like to go fast, so more often than not - unless I am loitering and sight seeing, I don't have the patience and I will go faster - and burn more.  But there you go - I have the option.  I thought when I got her, that I would save more fuel than I am being slow when I don't need to go fast, and sure enough I don't usually go around at published max cruise but I do usually go much faster than 51%.

My guess is that an ovation would roughly fit into this guesstimate arithmetic and if slowed down to M20J speed will not be too much different in fuel burn - although now the shape of the airplane is also changed (longer) so a third adjustment in a tad bit more is needed.

As far as cost, isn't the TSIO360 pretty much comparable to repair/overhaul/etc as a TSIO520nb?  ANd besides that, the airframes are the very same airframe so costs are the same - other than maybe the pucks probably need to be changed more often.

Great analysis, I'm an engineer so I follow all of your thoughts haha. 

My guess on 158 hp equivalent to 75% power in a hypothetical cruise setting at 11,000' for a 210 hp turbo k. In the Ovation, with the manifold pressure firewalled, I'm at 59% and about 19-20 inches which translates to 165 hp in terms of the 280 hp powerplant at 100%. 

My understanding is that 75% power for most all planes, if you can achieve it, during cruise is the goal for efficient maximum available power for a fast cruise setting. 

[Bennett]

I've posted similar comments so I will be brief: I owned a standard 231, which I later had Mod Works (Coy and Tim) covert it to their 261 Trophy Conversion via an STC. I currently own a 201, and so I can compare them to some degree. First, I am not really interested in fuel economy (except running LOP in the J when I am trying to eliminate an intermediate fuel stop). The standard 231 (mine was a 1980 model) was a fine airplane, but I wanted to go further, higher, and faster. The 261 conversion, with long range tanks was perfect for my purposes at that time. I regularly flew her in the mid FL 20s eastbound, and around 16,000' westbound on my many trips across the country. The Critical Altitude for 100% power was about 24,000', and while this was theoretically possible, TITs were a limiting factor. If I recall correctly, maximum cruise power was set at 78% power, and I used this as my limit for most flights. Her service ceiling was 28,000'. Think of the 261 conversion as a 12 Volt 252, with many speed mods, but square windows. She was a great cross country machine and I owned her for about 18 years, thousands of hours, and ultimately (thanks to Mobile Oil' s fully synthetic oil debacle) a LASAR built fantastic custom built engine. I sold her when my aircraft use needs changed, and after a series of other aircraft brands and types, I bought my current J and spent a considerable amount of money building her into my final aircraft (I am approaching 82).

So which is the better aircraft? Depends on what you want to do with an aircraft. The 261/262 conversions can be a bargain in the used market compared to the 252s. Virtually the same performance at all altitudes, and have the same maintenance expenses. The J is less expensive to maintain, lands a bit easier with less weight forward, has the same interior room as the 252/261:262, and up to about 7500' trues out at about the same speed, being a bit lighter. As you climb higher, the 252/261/262 pulls away - no contest. Initial climb rate is about the same as there is only about 10 HP difference for the 252(et al) v the 201, which is a bit lighter.

To be realistic, if you don't need to go high, fly out of low level airports, are aware of the limitations of naturally aspirated engines, the J is hard to beat.

If I were younger all the hot rods: Rockets, Missiles, and the newer long bodies (Porsche excepted) would be of huge interest, even if I only occasionally flew them to their capabilities. Too many temptations- too little time remaining to do them all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kris_adams]

Just like boats and RVs...Everyone wants one that 2' (or 5') bigger.  For us I think it is 20 or 30knots.  I know the secret--just don't fly in anything faster than my J and I'm happy...or hang around with a bunch of 172 drivers...

[M016576]

1 hour ago, donkaye said:

Not true if you haven't gotten a High Performance Endorsement previously.

Exactl, thanks for your thorough clarification... which is why I said "assuming you have the ratings already."  Technically I should have said "ratings and endorsements". Words do matter.

my point is that "type ratings" or checks for each individual type,model and series that those of us in 135, 121, turbine or military operations are used to, don't necessarily apply to single engine, light weight, recip, part 91 ops... although the insurance company will want to see some time in make/model.  

Also reference to my earlier comment- while the FAA may not require it, it may be prudent to seek advice or instruction when transitioning.

Edited January 9, 2017 by M016576

[M016576]

2 hours ago, donkaye said:

A Boeing 767 Captain was wise enough to get 8 hours of Bravo training from me.  That is pretty much the minimum time one MUST get in transitioning to a higher performance airplane--and that presumes instrument competency going into the training.

Where is 8 hours of transition training required in the regulations, that this pilot MUST have? 

Like I said above- if the pilot has not flown a Bravo before, it's probably prudent that he get some instruction with someone familiar with the aircraft prior to flying it.

The regulations, however, say that if he's got the qualifications and experience (ratings and endorsements, because words do matter), he can hop in ANY higher performance piston single airplane, without CFI instruction, and that's legal (part 91). I'm not saying it's smart, just that its legal.

[donkaye]

5 hours ago, M016576 said:

Where is 8 hours of transition training required in the regulations, that this pilot MUST have? 

Like I said above- if the pilot has not flown a Bravo before, it's probably prudent that he get some instruction with someone familiar with the aircraft prior to flying it.

The regulations, however, say that if he's got the qualifications and experience (ratings and endorsements, because words do matter), he can hop in ANY higher performance piston single airplane, without CFI instruction, and that's legal (part 91). I'm not saying it's smart, just that its legal.

I wasn't referring to FARs.   I was referring to what is prudent.  Many years ago a Bravo with TKS was sold with a prebuy at Top Gun in Stockton.  Tom recommended that the new purchaser, who had come out of a Cessna 414, get some transition  training with me.  The pilot declined and took off and flew to Truckee where he did a bounced landing so bad  that the wheels came up through the wing.  A new wing was required, and the pilot immediately sold the plane.  I have many more stories...

[AH-1 Cobra Pilot]

20 hours ago, Piloto said:

Unlike the easy towing by hand for the M20J for the M20R I recommend you get a motorized tow bar, specially when full of fuel.

My dad has said he might quit flying when he can no longer get his T-210 in/out of the hangar.  He pushes it himself, but he is a young guy, only 85.

[kris_adams]

2 hours ago, Ah-1 Cobra Pilot said:

My dad has said he might quit flying when he can no longer get his T-210 in/out of the hangar.  He pushes it himself, but he is a young guy, only 85.

Impressive...Not sure I could push that by hand at 45...need his workout routine

[Danb]

Hey Don how much weight do you pick up removing the rear seats. I'm also one of the few Bravo owners who prefer the G1000, second what DK referred I had two J models with 2000+ hours in the J's, I opted for 10 hours of transition training to the long body, of which I strongly recommend. Don check my post today re. faulty TIT temp  probe problems.

DB

[XXX]

The info in this thread is fantastic. The M20 is such a versatile airframe with so many options. Thanks to those who answered my questions. For those out there with a turbo or long body, please don't offer me a ride. I'm truly afraid that I might catch something that requires a large amount of AMU's to heal. I still enjoy my "F" so much and she fits my mission so well I really could do without the temptation.

[donkaye]

57 minutes ago, Danb said:

Hey Don how much weight do you pick up removing the rear seats.

Useful load pickup = 22.8 pounds.

[Danb]

Wow! I lost about 25 lbs last year being sick, 80 nmiles extra....