Is there a 200 kts Mooney?

[carusoam]

Sense the dissapointment when Santos reads the answers to his question...

 

Yes, Many Mooneys Travel at the requested 200kts over the ground...

To do so, is going to require some additional costs...

Minimum entry is some kind of compressor. A turbo of some form or another...

This allows for a greater percent power in the altitudes where there is less air resistance...

 

Yes, you can do it!

It is up to you to make it happen.  (that's the catch)

 

Calling an airplane a jet ski probably doesn't help your cause.  Which jet ski do you use in all weather (but ice and thunderstorms) to travel a 1000 miles, and carry three other people around, day or night...

Now you are either...

• asking a jet ski to cruise at 200kts, reliably..?
• asking for a real plane to be priced like an average jet ski..?

Some things about flying commercial....

• you can work on your project while somebody else does the flying.
• you can sleep while somebody does the flying.
•  

You can also cut back the requirement of speed just a bit...like 15%... and stay in the NA category.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N9157M

Not quite 200kts, just about 15% shy... 200+mph over the ground

This flight was VFR, LOP from the MooneySummit in Florida, at 9,500’.

200mph, using 13+gph, covering 800+ nm, invited into class Bravo over Philly and was allowed a descent into NJ...

The O is only a few steps faster than a F, J or C....

To consistantly beat The 200kt request, go TC'd or TN'd Mooney.

It helps to have an IR to allow for consistency .

PP thoughts only, not a commercial pilot or ATP...

Best regards,

-a-

[Hank]

6 minutes ago, teejayevans said:

If your not located near or traveling to a major hub, then any flight not requiring a fuel stop can be quicker in a Mooney if the commercial flight has a layover.

It's also quicker to fly my Mooney near a major hub if I don't require a fuel stop to get there, because the starting hub is so distant. Traveling for work, we leave 4-1/2 hours before our scheduled departure, that's my long-range fuel stop with just over an hour left.

Or is it "not efficient" to be able to fly myself to the destination before the commercial flight leaves the gate?

[Seth]

My Mooney Missile - STC that Rocket Engineering performed on the J model and swapped the 200 HP IO-360 with a continental 300 HP IO-550 is kind of like a Baby Ovation.  Normally aspirated - no turbo.

Lower purchase price, better climb, similar cruise and top speed.  Mid length body.

I’ve attained a maximum TAS on a 4 way course using GPS ground speed of 191 knots.  All day I can be 180, 185+ for a lot of fuel, and that 191 should I wish to burn up my engine in couple hundred hours.

I fly at 175-180 normally depending on fuel burn, altitude.  If there is a reason to increase speed I do, but for the $15-20 extra per hour for being there a few minutes earlier, normally I back down to 180.  Anything slower and well, I’ve become addicted to the speed.  I will slow down and get much better efficiency now and then, but I have mentally gotten used to a faster cruise phase on XC flights.

-Seth

 

Edited October 29, 2017 by Seth

[Shadrach]

 

6 minutes ago, Seth said:

My Mooney Missile - STC that Rocket Engineering performed on the J model and swapped the 200 HP IO-360 with a continental 300 HP IO-550 is kind of like a Baby Ovation.  Normally aspirated - no turbo.

Lower purchase price, better climb, similar cruise and top speed.  Mid length body.

I’ve attained a maximum TAS on a 4 way course using GPS ground speed of 191 knots.  All day I can be 180, 185+ for a lot of fuel, and that 191 should I wish to burn up my engine in couple hundred hours.

I fly at 175-180 normally depending on fuel burn, altitude.  If there is a reason to increase speed I do, but for the $15-20 extra per hour for being there a few minutes earlier, normally I back down to 180.  Anything slower and well, I’ve become addicted to the speed.  I will slow down and get much better efficiency now and then, but I have mentally gotten used to a faster cruise phase on XC flights.

-Seth

 

Interesting. So being the numbers guy that you are, would you say that the upgrading to the Missle from  from your F model represented a good ROI in terms of utility per dollar?  I may have asked before, what's your VFR range with 800lbs in the plane?

Edited October 29, 2017 by Shadrach

[Shadrach]

22 minutes ago, Hank said:

It's also quicker to fly my Mooney near a major hub if I don't require a fuel stop to get there, because the starting hub is so distant. Traveling for work, we leave 4-1/2 hours before our scheduled departure, that's my long-range fuel stop with just over an hour left.

Or is it "not efficient" to be able to fly myself to the destination before the commercial flight leaves the gate?

MS is full of these stories. A buddy and I flew the 533nm to a wedding on St Simon's Island, GA from Frederick, MD. We managed to make the trip in under 4hrs each way. Many folks launched from the DC/Baltimore corridor via the airlines destined for Jacksonville, FL with another hour to drive in their rentals. The only ones that beat us left the day before. We had a guitar, booze, two garment bags and wedding gifts. I think we burned 91gals IIRC. NFW that trip would have been better, faster or even cheaper via cattle car.

[Shadrach]

21 hours ago, BradB said:

Here is a straight and level pic.  TAS well over 200.  I do have TKS on my plane, so that slows me a little.   

 

BTW, my Acclaim is for sale. 

https://premieraircraftsales.com/index.php/mooney-aircraft-inventory/2008-mooney-acclaim-n708pj

 

Time for a PA-46T.

 

What sort of weather did you need to clear that necessitated a climb to 22,000ft fighting nearly 70kts on the nose, sucking a hose while basking in sub-zero temps? 

EDIT - A kind and gentle Mooneyspacer has informed me of my misinterpretation of IAS for GS.

Edited October 29, 2017 by Shadrach

[BradB]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

What sort of weather did you need to clear that necessitated a climb to 22,000ft fighting nearly 70kts on the nose, sucking a hose while basking in sub-zero temps? 

EDIT - A kind and gentle Mooneyspacer has informed me of my misinterpretation of IAS for GS.

Yes,  certainy would not be worth it if that were the case.   No weather on that trip.  Only 11 knots on the nose, which is somewhat rare heading that direction around here, that’s why I took advantage up there, and actually the headwind was lower up higher that day.   Most of the time that I am flying between Erie and Boston, I head East up in the FL’s and make the return trip lower.   Performance based planning in Foreflight is expensive, but it makes those decisions easier.

But a key thing for the OP to remember is that if you want to fly fast, you have to be willing to fly high.  Otherwise you are not taking advantage of that nice thin air.  But the price of admission is a turbocharger and an instrument rating.

Brad

[Seth]

10 hours ago, Shadrach said:

 

Interesting. So being the numbers guy that you are, would you say that the upgrading to the Missle from  from your F model represented a good ROI in terms of utility per dollar?  I may have asked before, what's your VFR range with 800lbs in the plane?

Yes, upgrading from the F to the Missile was a massive increase in both utility and systems.  I had 1016 useful load in the F and actually got an increase to 1067 in the Missile; +51 lbs.

I had a fast stock F 148 knots all day and with the Ram Air open 150+.  Saw 152 knots average  on a GPS 4 way cardinal direction flight speed test on a cold winter day.

So 51 more lbs and nearly 40 knots increase in speed.

Plus, GPS in panel, better interior, better avionics all around, and all the speed mods I would have paid for.  The small things that I didn’t realize were the small increases in systems.  It makes a non upgraded F to a J worthwhile where I thought speed was the main reason.  Originally I wasn’t looking at an M20J from the F as it want enough. But again, due to all the small upgrades from an early stock F - yes it’s worth it.  A late 75 or 76 F?  Maybe not.  Mine was a 67F.

I figured it would be 45k to 60k to upgrade my 67F the way I wanted which means it would have a been a top F and maybe have sold for the high 60s if I ever needed to sell - maybe touch 70k.  Instead, I sold my F, added what I would have spent and have a Missile that is worth a Missile should I need to sell, plus an airframe 16 years newer.

As for range, I’ve got the extended Monroy tanks with 98 gal total capacity.  Only two main issues with the Missile.  Fuel burn - I can’t just go out, fly for two hours, pop 16 gallons in the tank and realize the real efficieny is a 200HP IO360.  Instead, I’m assisted to speed, go fly for two hours, see how far I can get somewhere and I’m putting in at least 30 gallons to top off.  Instead of blocking 10-11GPH flat out, I plan for 15GPH at 180 knots all in.  I can knock it down if I’m at 8000ft or so to 14.5, but factoring in the climb, headwinds, I just base quick math on 15 GPH.  I also could slow down and get nearly J efficiency, but I don’t do it often.

The weighting is the other side. Heavy engine on the mid body makes for a much heavier nose and aircraft while maneuvering or landing.  The F was light and nimble.  The weight is another factor - grass strips. Full fuel in the tanks weighing on the gear picks.  Things to consider.

800 lbs of payload or does that include fuel?   Also, all depends on speed.  I have 1067 useful load and 99 gallons.

I can go 1000 miles in 5 hours or 1500 in 10.

800 lbs is under my total UL, so that equals above.

For 800 lbs in the cabin, that leaves 267 for fuel or 44.5 gallons.  So at 150 knots that’s a bit less than 600 in just under 4 hours flight time with VFR reserves.

At high speed that’s nearly 400 miles in just over two hours 12 minutes with VFR reserves.

 

Great questions.

 

-Seth

Edited October 30, 2017 by Seth

[Seth]

1 hour ago, Seth said:

Yes, upgrading from the F to the Missile was a massive increase in both utility and systems.  I had 1016 useful load in the F and actually got an increase to 1067 in the Missile; +51 lbs.

I had a fast stock F 148 knots all day and with the Ram Air open 150+.  Saw 152 knots average  on a GPS 4 way cardinal direction flight speed test on a cold winter day.

So 51 more lbs and nearly 40 knots increase in speed.

Plus, GPS in panel, better interior, better avionics all around, and all the speed mods I would have paid for.  The small things that I didn’t realize were the small increases in systems.  It makes a non upgraded F to a J worthwhile where I thought speed was the main reason.  Originally I wasn’t looking at an M20J from the F as it want enough. But again, due to all the small upgrades from an early stock F - yes it’s worth it.  A late 75 or 76 F?  Maybe not.  Mine was a 67F.

I figured it would be 45k to 60k to upgrade my 67F the way I wanted which means it would have a been a top F and maybe have sold for the high 60s if I ever needed to sell - maybe touch 70k.  Instead, I sold my F, added what I would have spent and have a Missile that is worth a Missile should I need to sell, plus an airframe 16 years newer.

As for range, I’ve got the extended Monroy tanks with 98 gal total capacity.  Only two main issues with the Missile.  Fuel burn - I can’t just go out, fly for two hours, pop 16 gallons in the tank and realize the real efficieny is a 200HP IO360.  Instead, I’m assisted to speed, go fly for two hours, see how far I can get somewhere and I’m putting in at least 30 gallons to top off.  Instead of blocking 10-11GPH flat out, I plan for 15GPH at 180 knots all in.  I can knock it down if I’m at 8000ft or so to 14.5, but factoring in the climb, headwinds, I just base quick math on 15 GPH.  I also could slow down and get nearly J efficiency, but I don’t do it often.

The weighting is the other side. Heavy engine on the mid body makes for a much heavier nose and aircraft while maneuvering or landing.  The F was light and nimble.  The weight is another factor - grass strips. Full fuel in the tanks weighing on the gear picks.  Things to consider.

800 lbs of payload or does that include fuel?   Also, all depends on speed.  I have 1067 useful load and 99 gallons.

I can go 1000 miles in 5 hours or 1500 in 10.

800 lbs is under my total UL, so that equals above.

For 800 lbs in the cabin, that leaves 267 for fuel or 44.5 gallons.  So at 150 knots that’s a bit less than 600 in just under 4 hours flight time with VFR reserves.

At high speed that’s nearly 400 miles in just over two hours 12 minutes with VFR reserves.

 

Great questions.

 

-Seth

Can’t believe that was 2011 - 6 years ago.

-Seth

[aviatoreb]

9 hours ago, Seth said:

Can’t believe that was 2011 - 6 years ago.

-Seth

Time flies when you are having fun, flying.

[SantosDumont]

On 10/29/2017 at 7:51 AM, carusoam said:

Calling an airplane a jet ski probably doesn't help your cause.  Which jet ski do you use in all weather (but ice and thunderstorms) to travel a 1000 miles, and carry three other people around, day or night...

Now you are either...

• asking a jet ski to cruise at 200kts, reliably..?
• asking for a real plane to be priced like an average jet ski..?

Not really calling an airplane a jetski, but more comparing it to the experience of riding a jetski across choppy waters.  Something that I could handle for a short period of time, but I really wouldn't want to do it for an extended period of time.

Sounds like I should be looking into something with a turbo that can get me up into the FL for smoother air and higher groundspeed.

[carusoam]

On the East coast most days... we get above the bumps by climbing to about 5k’...  enough to get above the bumps caused by wind flowing over the bumps on the ground...

For Best smooth air, climbing above that first layer of cloud bases works really well.  This gets us above the unstable air most days.

you can choose more hp to get there quicker...  and cruise quicker with a larger available bhp...

A TC or pair of TNs is a popular way of going all out speed at altitude.

An IO550 is another way to get above the bumps if you aren't interested in flying in the flight levels with O2 .

You still have to descend back down through the bumps.  Some people in the back of my plane can lose lunch on that short descent...  and there is ways to handle that too...

Best regards,

-a-

 

 

[Seth]

On 10/29/2017 at 11:09 AM, Seth said:

My Mooney Missile - STC that Rocket Engineering performed on the J model and swapped the 200 HP IO-360 with a continental 300 HP IO-550 is kind of like a Baby Ovation.  Normally aspirated - no turbo.

Lower purchase price, better climb, similar cruise and top speed.  Mid length body.

I’ve attained a maximum TAS on a 4 way course using GPS ground speed of 191 knots.  All day I can be 180, 185+ for a lot of fuel, and that 191 should I wish to burn up my engine in couple hundred hours.

I fly at 175-180 normally depending on fuel burn, altitude.  If there is a reason to increase speed I do, but for the $15-20 extra per hour for being there a few minutes earlier, normally I back down to 180.  Anything slower and well, I’ve become addicted to the speed.  I will slow down and get much better efficiency now and then, but I have mentally gotten used to a faster cruise phase on XC flights.

-Seth

 

I have to admit.  I didn't realize the way I would perceive the difference in speed on longer cross countries moving from a 148 knot aircraft to a 180+ knot aircraft.  It makes a difference.  I borrowed an M20J when mine was down for maintenance and am still kicking myself for feeling that 155 knots was not as fast as I was now accustomed to.  I should be lambasted for even thinking it was only 155 knots - as that's AMAZING!  But I'm just used to 180+ know.  It does make a difference on longer (and shorter) flights.

 

I'm sure I'd feel the same way stepping up from a 180 knot to 260-300 knot airplane.

 

I'm the top end of the inexpensive speedy and capable aircraft (obviously a C-150 is much less to maintain than a Missile - but not speedy nor payload nor range) - the next step up in capability speed wise is a much higher acquisition (Bravo/Acclaim/M Class) or much higher operating (Twin or pressurized or SETP).

 

-Seth

Edited November 8, 2017 by Seth

[RobertGary1]

On 10/27/2017 at 12:26 PM, buddy said:

My O2 with the 310hp STC flat out at 5500 ft. Will do 200 kts but I normally cruise at   175 kts all day long using 2400 rpm.

I wouldn't want to run at 5500 feet too long around Vegas. Those giant rocks hurt.

-Robert

[gsxrpilot]

9 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

I wouldn't want to run at 5500 feet too long around Vegas. Those giant rocks hurt.

Yeah, this is me somewhere over Vegas... 

 

[Niko182]

14 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

Yeah, this is me somewhere over Vegas... 

 

thats a pretty impressive GS.

[ArtVandelay]

thats a pretty impressive GS.

From attitude indicators he is in a descent.

[wpbarnar]

The Aspen has a VSI tape that pops up in the HSI window when you are in a decent. 200k TAS is plausible in a 252 @ 25k ft.  I think he is level flight.

@gsxrpilot, Have you ever looked into why the JPI and Aspen OAT indications  don't correlate closer.   If the Aspen is reading low you are going a knot faster. 

Bill

[MIm20c]

It’s possible he is in a slight updraft that would increase speed when the AP lowers the nose to maintain altitude. Looks like ~200kts is very doable in a 252. 

[MIm20c]

40 minutes ago, wpbarnar said:

 Have you ever looked into why the JPI and Aspen OAT indications  don't correlate closer.   If the Aspen is reading low you are going a knot faster. 

Probably Has something to do with being so close to Mach 1 and the crazy things that happen to the air around the plane.

[gsxrpilot]

2 hours ago, teejayevans said:

From attitude indicators he is in a descent.

This was with the autopilot holding level flight. In the updrafts and down drafts, the VSI tape pops up on the Aspen. I've got pictures showing 204 but with the VSI showing a decent. I had to find a photo without the VSI tape or you would all say I was pointed at the ground. 

[gsxrpilot]

1 hour ago, wpbarnar said:

The Aspen has a VSI tape that pops up in the HSI window when you are in a decent. 200k TAS is plausible in a 252 @ 25k ft.  I think he is level flight.

@gsxrpilot, Have you ever looked into why the JPI and Aspen OAT indications  don't correlate closer.   If the Aspen is reading low you are going a knot faster. 

Bill

After the plane spent 7 months in the shop for one thing after another, I've just been flying it. There are a few bugs to work out on the new panel. But all are very minor, so I've been reluctant to put it back in the shop.

[gsxrpilot]

It’s possible he is in a slight updraft that would increase speed when the AP lowers the nose to maintain altitude. Looks like ~200kts is very doable in a 252. 

Not bad for a 1987 mid-body.

[M016576]

To answer the OP’s question- no.  Unless you want to fly above about 14,000 and burn 23ish GPH.  In which case yes.

if you want to reliably get faster than 200KTAS, and fly below the “mask-on-o-sphere” you’ll need a different airplane. 

180 KTAS on 13GPH is pretty good though, and if you’re within 650NM of several destinations, it’s an easily achievable feat. I’ve been flying the Rockies and west coast for 9 years and about 1000 hours in a J and now a TKS’d missile, and it’s been a great family hauler experience.  Lots of trips to take for the centerally located on the west coast: Seattle, Portland, Napa, Monterey, Sacramento, Reno, Vegas, LA, SLO, SD... and that’s not even talking about the coastal gems or the more remote options.

From Vegas (I used to live a bit west of there)- lots of options.  The real cost savings doesn’t come in until you start talking about flying 4... a wife and 2 kids... 

it’s a stretch to make a mooney “economical” before that, unless your time is worth that much (sadly, mine is not- or at least it isn’t according to my employer!)

[ArtVandelay]

This was with the autopilot holding level flight. In the updrafts and down drafts, the VSI tape pops up on the Aspen. I've got pictures showing 204 but with the VSI showing a decent. I had to find a photo without the VSI tape or you would all say I was pointed at the ground. 

Ok, looks like you were holding level in a updraft, so you were pointed at the ground , hence the reason why I ignore performance claims on the internet even with pictures.
You can also go into a short rapid descent, build up speed, level out and take a picture.
I go by POH numbers only.