Brian Scranton

*SOLD* 1975 TN M20F EXECUTIVE

Recommended Posts

Hi guys, I doubt this will sound familiar, but I am looking to carry more and go faster. So, in order to do that, I must get rid of my little hot rod. For your consideration is my 1975 Turbo Mooney M20F Executive. Awesome bird; flies high and fast on very little 100LL. 

4493.1 TTAF
1228.8 SMOH IO-360 A1A
1493.4 SINCE PROP OVERHAUL; IRAN 30.5 HOURS (Fall of 2017)
FRESH ANNUAL 4/2018 HANGARED, ALL ANNUALS, ALL ADs

Compression as on 4/2018: 1-76, 2-76, 3-74, 4-72

UPGRADES:
• GARMIN 430 WITH TERRAIN AND OBSTACLE AWARENESS
• GARMIN GTX 330 TRANSPONDER WITH TRAFFIC AWARENESS (DISPLAYED ON 430)
• McCOY MOD OF KING RADIO (KX170B)
• RAYJAY TURBOCHARGER
• CENTURY 3-AXIS AUTOPILOT (HEADING, VOR, OR GPS MODES--tracks GS)
• INSIGHT GRAPHIC ENGINE MONITOR w/ TIT
• NEW JPI DIGITAL FUEL FLOW, 2017
• NEW WINDOWS (INCLUDING ONE-PIECE WINDSHIELD) AT 3250 HRS
• O&N BLADDERS (55gal), 2005
• LED LANDING LIGHT
• NEW BATTERY, 2018
• NEW VACCUM PUMP, 2017
• NEW FUEL SERVO, 2018
• ACCESS DOOR FOR BATTERY MAINTENANCE (MAINTAINER INCLUDED IN SALE)
• CHROME HUB CAPS
• IMPROVED TIE-DOWN POINTS AND NYLON WEB TIE-DOWN STRAPS (3) AND CHOCKS
• PORTABLE ENGINE PRE-HEATER
• PROTECTIVE COVERS (FUEL CAPS, COWLING INLET, PITOT TUBE, REFLECTIVE WINDOW LINERS)

PRICE: ASKING $62,500
CONTACT: BRIAN @ 970-201-8570

N7462V Interior.jpeg

N7462V Left.jpeg

N7462V Front.jpeg

N7462V Right Rear.jpeg

N7462V Panel.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Members that donate $10 or more do not see advertisements*

Next aircraft Burning JetA?  It'd have to if its going to outrun or outhaul that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh. I'm torn. I am thinking of taking on a partner so therefore, I can "afford" more airplane. Same payment, twice the plane! 

Flying her to KSQL tomorrow. She just got out of annual and some how, for some reason, she's flying 10kts faster TAS. ??????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ugh. I'm torn. I am thinking of taking on a partner so therefore, I can "afford" more airplane. Same payment, twice the plane! 
Flying her to KSQL tomorrow. She just got out of annual and some how, for some reason, she's flying 10kts faster TAS. ??????


They re-rig her?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks nice, came off the line one before mine.  Useful load?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on power and altitude.

At 24/2450: 140KTAS @ 12K feet, 145KTAS @16K feet and 155KTAS @20K feet

At 26/2450: 148KTAS @12K feet, 153KTAS@16K feet and @160KTAS @20K feet

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Brian Scranton said:

Depends on power and altitude.

At 24/2450: 140KTAS @ 12K feet, 145KTAS @16K feet and 155KTAS @20K feet

At 26/2450: 148KTAS @12K feet, 153KTAS@16K feet and @160KTAS @20K feet

 

What are your fuel flows at those settings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Brian Scranton said:

Depends on power and altitude.

At 24/2450: 140KTAS @ 12K feet, 145KTAS @16K feet and 155KTAS @20K feet

At 26/2450: 148KTAS @12K feet, 153KTAS@16K feet and @160KTAS @20K feet

 

Is it just me or is that slow? I thought NA models where about 150-155 KTAS at 6000-7000’

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it just me or is that slow? I thought NA models where about 150-155 KTAS at 6000-7000’


It’s turbonormalized not turbocharged. If we took our normally aspirated 150 KTAS (at 8 or 9k) planes to FL160 we wouldn’t be doing 160 KTAS.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Marauder said:

 


It’s turbonormalized not turbocharged. If we took our normally aspirated 150 KTAS (at 8 or 9k) planes to FL160 we wouldn’t be doing 160 KTAS.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

Turbonormalized and turbocharged are practically the same thing in the sense both should be able to produce 100% horsepower to at least 18,000.’ TN at 30,” TC at whatever boost value the engine manufacturer decided. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, johncruce223 said:

Is it just me or is that slow? I thought NA models where about 150-155 KTAS at 6000-7000’

It has been a number of years since I've owned my '67 turbo F model but those numbers seem about what I remember getting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, johncruce223 said:

Turbonormalized and turbocharged are practically the same thing in the sense both should be able to produce 100% horsepower to at least 18,000.’ TN at 30,” TC at whatever boost value the engine manufacturer decided. 

I don't think the Ray Jay installation does that. I recall maximum MP being 27" so it isn't even truly turbo-normalized. And I know mine didn't make 27" to 18,000 ft either, maybe 16,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Turbonormalized and turbocharged are practically the same thing in the sense both should be able to produce 100% horsepower to at least 18,000.’ TN at 30,” TC at whatever boost value the engine manufacturer decided. 


Ken’s explanation above is what I recall was the reason I didn’t pursue the turbo-normalized option. You never get the full sea level pressure and unlike a plane with a true turbocharger, you will never see above 30” of MP (and have an engine designed to support it).

The big advantage is that unlike my NA F that starts losing TAS above 10k, you’ll keep and gain a little TAS in the mid teens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll admit mine isn't a turbo F, but not far from it. The only real difference is the intercooler. It will do 30" to FL210. The STC says it will do FL190. I could readjust the fixed waste gate I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/6/2018 at 4:38 PM, Drumstick said:

What are your fuel flows at those settings?

At 24/2450: 140KTAS @ 12K feet, 145KTAS @16K feet and 155KTAS @20K feet--FF 12.5 GPH, 125 degrees ROP

At 26/2450: 148KTAS @12K feet, 153KTAS@16K feet and @160KTAS @20K feet--FF 13.5 GPH, 125 degrees ROP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/7/2018 at 11:41 AM, KLRDMD said:

I don't think the Ray Jay installation does that. I recall maximum MP being 27" so it isn't even truly turbo-normalized. And I know mine didn't make 27" to 18,000 ft either, maybe 16,000.

That's close. It's 28.5" for up to 3 mins on take off, 27" max continuous up to 20,000ft...really depends on how you set your vernier cable. I can get 27" to 20,000. And 22" up to 25,000. 

And, I have never heard of an NA F model doing 155KTAS at 6000ft. That's awesome. Mine certainly does NOT do that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Brian Scranton said:

That's close. It's 28.5" for up to 3 mins on take off, 27" max continuous up to 20,000ft...really depends on how you set your vernier cable. I can get 27" to 20,000. And 22" up to 25,000. 

And, I have never heard of an NA F model doing 155KTAS at 6000ft. That's awesome. Mine certainly does NOT do that. 

Same limitations with my unit. These are TN engines and not TC which means full rated power is close to the 28.5 MP usable for takeoff. The TC engines would be pushing 34-38 MP for rated power. 

Mine pushes me 10-15 kts faster at altitude and gives 750 fpm to get there. I really like mine and would be looking closely at this one if I was in the market. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MIm20c said:

Same limitations with my unit. These are TN engines and not TC which means full rated power is close to the 28.5 MP usable for takeoff. The TC engines would be pushing 34-38 MP for rated power. 

Mine pushes me 10-15 kts faster at altitude and gives 750 fpm to get there. I really like mine and would be looking closely at this one if I was in the market. 

Thanks dude. I am torn. I keep going back and forth between keeping her and selling her. If she was FIKI, she'd be perfect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's close. It's 28.5" for up to 3 mins on take off, 27" max continuous up to 20,000ft...really depends on how you set your vernier cable. I can get 27" to 20,000. And 22" up to 25,000. 
And, I have never heard of an NA F model doing 155KTAS at 6000ft. That's awesome. Mine certainly does NOT do that. 


3eb93ac3e388b889826c1f84151e934a.jpg

How about 155 KTAS at 5500’? My F has always been a bit faster than other Fs. I have the usual speed mods, but she has always been a bit special.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Marauder said:

 


3eb93ac3e388b889826c1f84151e934a.jpg

How about 155 KTAS at 5500’? My F has always been a bit faster than other Fs. I have the usual speed mods, but she has always been a bit special.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

All of your girls are “Special”

Clarence

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/6/2018 at 7:18 PM, johncruce223 said:

Is it just me or is that slow? I thought NA models where about 150-155 KTAS at 6000-7000’

Only if they have been heavily modified, the owners are stretching the truth, or they are willing to burn a lot of fuel.    A stock 20 F is good for about 140 knots at 9 gph fuel flow.  A 20J will do about 150 knots at 9 gph. 

From the 20J Flight Evaluation at 50 degrees rich of peak (most of us run lean of peak and several gallons per hour less fuel flow):

"If you look at all this data, it becomes much easier to decipher is you make the following simplifications; 1) the M20J is a 160 KTAS airplane in level flight, 2) the M20E is a 150 KTAS airplane, 3) the M20F is 150 KTAS and the M20C is 140 KTAS. So in the day to day flying we do, there is a 20 KTAS spread in these four airplanes -- the J model is 10 KTAS faster than and E or F and 20 KTAS faster than the C. So Mooney's engineers extracted 10 KTAS from the F model when they developed the M20J. That's quite a feat, especially since it was all done with aerodynamics and not horsepower. "

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, TTaylor said:

Only if they have been heavily modified, the owners are stretching the truth, or they are willing to burn a lot of fuel.    A stock 20 F is good for about 140 knots at 9 gph fuel flow.  A 20J will do about 150 knots at 9 gph. 

From the 20J Flight Evaluation at 50 degrees rich of peak (most of us run lean of peak and several gallons per hour less fuel flow):

"If you look at all this data, it becomes much easier to decipher is you make the following simplifications; 1) the M20J is a 160 KTAS airplane in level flight, 2) the M20E is a 150 KTAS airplane, 3) the M20F is 150 KTAS and the M20C is 140 KTAS. So in the day to day flying we do, there is a 20 KTAS spread in these four airplanes -- the J model is 10 KTAS faster than and E or F and 20 KTAS faster than the C. So Mooney's engineers extracted 10 KTAS from the F model when they developed the M20J. That's quite a feat, especially since it was all done with aerodynamics and not horsepower. "

 

I suppose that that summary reflects "stock" versions of the 4 models. The Lopresti clean up of the M20 airframe and induction system gave the J its improved performance.

Of course there are probably more vintage Mooneys in the fleet that have been modified with "201" features than there are stock Cs, Es, and Fs. I suppose the typical, modified M20E is not 20 knots slower than a J. In fact, given the difference in gross and empty weight alone, an E might be faster than many Js. (Es have a gross of 2575 vs. early Fs and early Js at 2740 and the later Js of 2900.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now