This is why I upgraded from a "J' to a "K"

[Shadrach]

Does anyone else see Don's profile pic as proof of the awesome performance of the older turbo Mooneys?

[M20F-1968]

In answer to the retrofit O2 question and the J v. 252 question, my bird is a highly modified F, which now is essentially a J with a Johnson bar and hydraulic flaps. 

I retrofitted an Ovation oxygen system, with the exception of swapping out the 115 cubic ft bottle for a 55 cubic foot bottle.  The install works well.  I used all the factory parts

and also have an Ovation style interior so placing the components into the cabin was predetermined.

If you want to do such an install, I have the two original installation brackets which fit the 115 cubic foot composite bottle. 

As a turbonormalized IO-360 Lycoming, it is a 170-175 kt airplane at 17,000 ft on 11 gph and is simple to operate with low maintenance costs.  This offers an excellent

middle ground between the J and 252.

John Breda

 

[DonMuncy]

There are some odd quirks in this new system. Why on earth would my pic pop up there.

[Shadrach]

No kidding. Really bad trying to edit with an iPad; unable to scroll through message in edit mode. It also replaced my 246kt descent screenshot with Jsavages's avatar.  All in all, the new software package has a lot of weird bugs to be worked through.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Shadrach

[Jsavage3]

Sure would be nice if a shop decided it was worthwhile to offer a turbo option to current E, F and J owners again...see http://m20turbos.hypermart.net/

IMO, there would be a market for it... So it might cost $30K plus installation into the one you know and love or buy a K/M model. Just from a tax standpoint, there is something to be said for keeping the one you know...selling yours and buying another airplane is costly when you consider everything that should go into a sale -- PPI, taxes, traveling to look, paint/interior/panel upgrades to "make it yours", financing, etc... Let alone the actual purchase costs for the "new" airplane.

I would certainly consider the option of giving my J more air.

P.S. I believe these two charts are comparing a NA J and a turbo J...not a turbo K.  These charts were acquired from the M20Turbos website, which when they were operational, their specialty was putting a turbo on E, F & J models. I believe this is why the ROC shown for the turbo is higher than what most K Drivers see...the J being a lighter weight airplane, the effect of the turbo will be more noticeable.  This is just my opinion though.

 

Edited September 21, 2015 by Jsavage3

[Shadrach]

Those climb numbers seem low for a J. I see pretty close to book numbers on ROC and typically do quite a bit better in winter.

[peevee]

I think our k has ruined me for na aircraft

 

I see closer to 800fpm at 36" high rpm and about 110kias

Edited September 17, 2015 by peevee

[jetdriven]

Those climb numbers seem low for a J. I see pretty close to book numbers on ROC and typically do quite a bit better in winter.

my plane won't climb nearly that good. 

[Shadrach]

my plane won't climb nearly that good. 

I wonder why? I don't think my VSI is optimistic. It matches pretty closely what the GPS says.

[SkyBound]

My K is 500-800 fpm in the climb as well depending on the altitude. I climb at about 110-115 kts, 34" and 2600 rpm, burning about 20 GPH.

Edited September 19, 2015 by SkyBound

[Shadrach]

My K is 500-800 fpm in the climb as well depending on the altitude. I climb at about 110-115 kts, 34" and 2600 rpm, burning about 20 GPH.

Is that for cooling? I climb at 105kts for cruise climb. 

[SkyBound]

Hi Ross - cooling as well as efficiency (covering more ground distance while keeping a good rate of climb).  I can try 105 kts next time and see the difference.  Do you do 105 kts IAS at all altitudes or mostly below 10,000 ft?

--Alex

[Shadrach]

Hi Alex,

It depends on DA. 105kts will give ~1000fpm or more through about 4,000' unless I'm heavy and it's hot. I don't change speed much in the climb until/unless the VSI drops under 600fpm. In the winter time I can hold 1000fpm or more through 7,000. My bird feels quite usable up to 12,500'

It climbs pretty well. I just reviewed a video I made last spring. From advancing the throttle on takeoff roll (704' FE) to 1000'agl took 59secs. Rotation to 1000'agl took 49sec. That's 1224fpm for the first 1000'.

Where do you keep aircraft?

Edited September 20, 2015 by Shadrach

[peevee]

My K is 500-800 fpm in the climb as well depending on the altitude. I climb at about 110-115 kts, 34" and 2600 rpm, burning about 20 GPH.

I find that extra 2" of MP from 34-36 makes a huge difference if I'm not paying attention and my climb rate drops it's usually because I haven't advanced the throttle in climb.

[SkyBound]

Shadrach - I keep my aircraft at KGAI. 

I believe there is significant performance difference between the F and the K which is the reason I am not seeing the same climb rates as you at lower altitudes.

[Shadrach]

Shadrach - I keep my aircraft at KGAI. 

I believe there is significant performance difference between the F and the K which is the reason I am not seeing the same climb rates as you at lower altitudes.

I've heard this from other turbo drivers, my neighbor use to have a Bravo and said there was no way he could keep up with me to about 5k. In his case, I think his MX had the FF set too lean as anything more than about 800fpm would soon force him to level off for cooling.  I am trying to discern why a K model suffers down low on anything but efficiency. It has a cleaner airframe, similar weight and 5% power advantage. I don't think "time to climb" to 5000' is a lot to brag about.  I am more curious because if we ever modded our aircraft it would likely be with a TN'd Rayjay setup, which we perceive to be the best performance value. I'm wondering if it sap some performance down low

The purpose of the "Question for Turbo...." thread I started was to learn about how different folks operate and the performance trade offs. I thank all of you for your replies!

Edited September 20, 2015 by Shadrach

[Houman]

I think our k has ruined me for na aircraft

 

I see closer to 800fpm at 36" high rpm and about 110kias

yeah, now imagine me with 130h of flight time jumping in K Rocket converted. I was in aww after the first 5 min, seeing the vsi at about 1500 ft/min and still going at about 120 to 130 knots...

[Jsavage3]

Well, I bit the bullet...sold my J and bought a 252.  It's a low-time 87' model with good history and avionics... So far, very pleased.  Some things I like: built-in O2 (no more O2 bottle hanging off the front pax seat), easier engine management (lean off of TIT) i.e. no need to find which cylinder peaked first or last, substantially faster (154 KIAS versus 139 KIAS which is what I always saw in my J), wing-mounted fuel gauges, ability to go up and gain about 2 knots true per thousand feet...otherwise, it feels like a J.  Looking under the cowl is a bit scary at first...there's alot going on in there.  Hopefully time, exposure and experience will tame that particular beast...

As a result of the discussion found below that I caused, I'll expound...  Yes, my J always indicated 139 KIAS for about 157-159 KTAS at 25-50 ROP burning 10 GPH.  On my "take her home" flight, my 252 indicated 154 KIAS for 166 KTAS at 6,000 feet MSL and 50 ROP TIT burning 13.3 GPH (I stayed low due to 40-knot headwinds that grew stronger with altitude).

Edited February 25, 2016 by Jsavage3

[ArtVandelay]

25 minutes ago, Jsavage3 said:

Well, I bit the bullet...sold my J and bought a 252.  It's a low-time 87' model with good history and avionics... So far, very pleased.  Some things I like: built-in O2 (no more O2 bottle hanging off the front pax seat), easier engine management (lean off of TIT) i.e. no need to find which cylinder peaked first or last, substantially faster (154 KIAS versus 139 KIAS which is what I always saw in my J), wing-mounted fuel gauges, ability to go up and gain about 2 knots true per thousand feet...otherwise, it feels like a J.  Looking under the cowl is a bit scary at first...there's alot going on in there.  Hopefully time, exposure and experience will tame that particular beast...

139 with powerflow exhaust, GAMIs, etc, that doesn't sound right, even LOP

[Hank]

He's reporting IAS at altitude, not True.

Where were all these pilots from the pointy part of Ohio when I lived there??? I only knew one other, and he bought his'n after I got mine, kept it a while and sold it. I'm still flying mine . . .

[Bob_Belville]

12 minutes ago, teejayevans said:

139 with powerflow exhaust, GAMIs, etc, that doesn't sound right, even LOP

He's talking Indicated, not true. 139 KIAS would be about 162 KTAS @ 10,000. The pic is my old E showing 158 TAS @ 135.5 ias @ 9500 @ 30.35 baro.

[Hank]

Bob! I thought Es were fast . . . And my C has a 3-blade air brake on the nose!

Oops, yours is in knots . . .    My 144 mphi is 148 knots true. You got me by ten.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Hank

[Bob_Belville]

Nice Hank, Your C is doing 125 kias, vs. my E's 135.5 kias. Seems about right. I get 8.5% more speed with 11% more hp. Drag goes up with the square of speed.  

[M20F]

8 hours ago, Bob_Belville said:

Nice Hank, Your C is doing 125 kias, vs. my E's 135.5 kias. Seems about right. I get 8.5% more speed with 11% more hp. Drag goes up with the square of speed.  

F > E > C, there is nothing like the speed, comfort, and view from an Executive at a leisurely 162kts.

[Bob_Belville]

2 hours ago, M20F said:

F > E > C, there is nothing like the speed, comfort, and view from an Executive at a leisurely 162kts.

What am I missing? You climb up to FL 250, take a pic while in a 300 f/m descent to claim to go 4 knots faster than a 50 year old E? I think even Marauder would be embarrassed.