Jump to content

First Mooney: 231 vs. 201


Recommended Posts

This is ancient history and not applicable. The Continental TSIO-360 is a reliable, robust and mostly maintenance free engine - *if* is it run properly.

I did a quick check on controller.com; out of 4 planes with more 1000 hrs, 3 had top overhauls. One has 1600 hours.
If I was looking at a 231, I try to buy one as runout or freshly overhauled to avoid the ones not run properly.
When I was looking back in 2013, there was a lot of 231s with engines around 1000 hours, owners trying to dump them I guess.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I own a 231.  Trip distance and willingness to use oxygen are the deciding factors.  If you frequently go more than 250 miles and you don't mind being on oxygen, the 231 makes sense.  If you don't like being on oxygen and don't want to spend much time in the teens, or you don't usually go far enough to warrant a climb to the teens, the J model makes a lot more sense.  Mine has the hot prop but I don't like it.  It involves more maintenance and, given the lack of any other icing protection, I kind of wonder about exactly what sort of inadvertent icing encounter I would survive with the hot prop and not survive without.  I get extra time to wonder about that since it knocks a pretty significant chunk off cruise speed.  Someday maybe I'll upgrade to the MT three blade and I honestly don't know whether I'll buy a hot version or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a 252 and I love it. But if I didn't regularly fly above 15,000 ft, I'd rather have a 201.

I used to own an M20C and would fly it regularly between 12,000 and 14,000 ft. But it was topped out there. I regularly fly my 252 with an O2 mask on and above FL200.  Unless you like being in the flight levels (I do) I'd get a 201.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have had a 231 since 2009.  Its a great plane.  It has weaknesses, no doubt.  I have been flying it mostly LOP, it is at the shop for the annual, and the pressure tests are going up rather than down.  The shop tells me the lowest pressure is 70, which is quite nice for a TCM engine.  One concern I would have, having been through the buying and subsequent repairing process with mine, is how the prior pilot flew the aircraft.  The throttle management is not that difficult, but an NA pilot flying a turbo as though it were an NA will kill the engine pretty quickly.  It don't think my aircraft was flown very well before I got it, but the last one thousand hours have been pretty good, the engine is in good shape.  

Don't bank on the hot prop.  If you wander into a high, wet cloud top, sure the hot prop will keep the engine from vibrating off the plane, but you will have quite a lot of other trouble going on, maybe more than you can handle.  It is not an aircraft for penetrating IMC at temps below freezing, you may not come out the other end in the same top/up belly/down orientation you went in.  It is not a FIKI aircraft and cannot be made so.  The alternator coupler is a royal pain, I have gone through several, and with one alternator and one battery you do not have much of a safety margin in IMC.  I would not depend on it for lengthy IMC where you can't get out quickly and safely.  

It does fly high and esp. with a good tailwind, very fast.  Around the clock, I have flown from Minneapolis to Niagara Falls, Fredrick, MD, Asheville, NC, Bahamas four times, the longest was South Andros via Nassau for customs, Oklahoma, Texas, Taos, NM, flew the plane home from Pheonix, Denver a couple of times, and Kalispell two or three times, plus everything in between.  I have done many crossings of the Rockies, landed and taken off from Leadville, CO (altitude 9933.5 ft.).  I have landed it on asphalt and grass, and approaching two hundred different fields around the country.  It handles it all with aplomb.  

Edited by jlunseth
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, johncuyle said:

I own a 231.  Trip distance and willingness to use oxygen are the deciding factors.  If you frequently go more than 250 miles and you don't mind being on oxygen, the 231 makes sense.  If you don't like being on oxygen and don't want to spend much time in the teens, or you don't usually go far enough to warrant a climb to the teens, the J model makes a lot more sense.  Mine has the hot prop but I don't like it.  It involves more maintenance and, given the lack of any other icing protection, I kind of wonder about exactly what sort of inadvertent icing encounter I would survive with the hot prop and not survive without.  I get extra time to wonder about that since it knocks a pretty significant chunk off cruise speed.  Someday maybe I'll upgrade to the MT three blade and I honestly don't know whether I'll buy a hot version or not.

An airplane can carry a ton of ice and still fly but you have to have a clean airscrew to do it.  Probably the most important thing to have clean.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, teejayevans said:

I did a quick check on controller.com; out of 4 planes with more 1000 hrs, 3 had top overhauls. One has 1600 hours.

Doesn't surprise me. Most pilots have no idea how to properly run an engine, especially a turbo charged one. Almost no CFIs know how to and unfortunately way too many A&P really know nothing about proper engine management either. But that's changing . . . slowly.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most have covered the pros and cons of the 201 vs 231 so I can not add much more other than to tell you I have owned my 231 for 15 years and love the turbo. My attitude towards hourly cost is "if I have to ask..." I would jump on a 231 over a 201...especially if it is priced lower.....not even a question...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

Doesn't surprise me. Most pilots have no idea how to properly run an engine, especially a turbo charged one. Almost no CFIs know how to and unfortunately way too many A&P really know nothing about proper engine management either. But that's changing . . . slowly.

I would tend to agree except for one thing. Factory continental cylinders seem to wear out the valve guides and burn the valves around 800hr. That particular failure is a machining defect and will happen regardless of the pilot. Either, and/or the valve seats aren’t concentric to the guide or the rockers aren’t 90 degrees to the valve stems.. The cure for this is to have a good cylinder shop such as Powermasters machine and assemble the valve train. Theirs won’t go bad. There are others too. BUt the factory can’t seem to get it right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

I would tend to agree except for one thing. Factory continental cylinders seem to wear out the valve guides and burn the valves around 800hr. That particular failure is a machining defect and will happen regardless of the pilot. Either, and/or the valve seats aren’t concentric to the guide or the rockers aren’t 90 degrees to the valve stems.. The cure for this is to have a good cylinder shop such as Powermasters machine and assemble the valve train. Theirs won’t go bad. There are others too. BUt the factory can’t seem to get it right. 

I'm over 1300 on my TSIO360MB and all original.  Fingers crossed, knock on wood, etc...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

I'm over 1300 on my TSIO360MB and all original.  Fingers crossed, knock on wood, etc...

The -LB in my 231 had three cylinders replaced at a bit over 1300 hours, no idea how the engine was run as that was before I bought it but now it has close to 1600 hours still with three original cylinders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have posted this before, but perhaps worth repeating again. 

I think the TSIO360, is sometimes criticized too much. Many of them have had cylinders replaced well before TBO; mine did several times. When I looked back in the logs most of them were because of "low compression". Then I finally found the Continental SB that tells us that Continental cylinders are not "bad" because of low compression. If a cylinder is low, it should be flown for a period of time, and rechecked. In many cases, the compression will be back within the normal range.

I do think that Continental cylinders are more prone to failure than Lycoming, but not necessarily in the percentages often attributed to them.

When you couple this with the way a lot people were taught to fly; that is, push the throttle to the firewall and leave it there, the 231 engine will not last. So, yes, a 231 requires some management. But it is not really all that difficult, once you get used to it.

If you don't have a need to fly high, a J is probably a better choice, but when you are going cross country, it is really nice to get up above a lot of the traffic, and a lot of the weather. I cruise a lot at the 14 to 16k range, and can usually go over or around weather buildups. It doesn't take too many of these to make it worthwhile.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the 201 you will never have a turbo problem, neither two extra cylinders to worry about. I have gotten my 201 up to 19,000 feet but just my self on it. Keep in mind that flying at high altitudes you have a good chance of facing strong headwinds. Myself I prefer reliability over performance, a flying 201 is much faster than a 231 in the shop.

José

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never climb into a headwind. My last trip from dc to houston was at 1500-2500 AGL. We did have to file and climb to 6000 for a few minutes and it was a 40 knot penalty. 4000 was only 20kt but what are you gonna do in the soup 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, jetdriven said:

I never climb into a headwind. My last trip from dc to houston was at 1500-2500 AGL. We did have to file and climb to 6000 for a few minutes and it was a 40 knot penalty. 4000 was only 20kt but what are you gonna do in the soup 

My experience also.  The increase in headwind as you go up, nearly always equals or exceeds the increase in TAS, even with a turbo.  If there is a reason, such as a cloud deck to overtop, or just too bumpy low down, or ATC needs you at a minimum altitude for radar or comm, then I will do it.  The high altitude tailwinds are a real ride though.  Very common to be in the range of 200-230 kts GS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello again

The K will give you more possibilities, is significantly faster and can go to altitudes no 201 can. The example you quote looks quite nice to me from what you wrote, operative words LB engine and intercooler. I would not shy away from a turbo because of forum talk.

As for turbo engines, I've extensively flown the Seneca II which had fixed wastegate turbos, which means you have to be careful setting power on take off. In cruise, setting power is no different other than the numbers go higher. I suppose you could even fly a 231 LOP and get away with it.

Ever since the early Malibu engine scandals which had nothing to do with the engine but with people being too stupid to use them properly, I am very wary of forum talk on turbos. You might want to look up John Deakin's take on "those firebreathing turbos" rather. What is true though is that the LB engine is better than the GB.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, carusoam said:

Speaking of forum talk...

Actually, speaking of "forum talk" it was maybe a bad acronym to use for the usual airport pub banter. Particularly in this forum it may well be totally inappropriate, as here there are mostly people who DO have the experience and therefore the foundation to talk about these things.

What I was referring to is the stuff also Deakin refers to in his many excellent articles: Urban legends about engines, airplanes and other subjects where people debate about things they have no idea about. They have never flown an airplane with turbo engine yet they "know" Turbos are "difficult" and "expensive" e.t.c. because others told them so.

I guess this is what makes the value of a forum like Mooneyspace, where people meet who actually KNOW what they are talking about and don't simply repeat urban (aviation) myths. There are other places which are outright damaging to people who inquire about ownership or learning to fly, getting an IR e.t.c.

7 hours ago, carusoam said:

Urs is up extra late tonight!

LOL, well, yea, there are people who work these kind of hours :). I was just coming off duty when I took a bit of time on the forum to unwind.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.