which model is the best F,J,K or M

[jonhop]

1 hour ago, gsxrpilot said:

And I'll disagree with the others around here and say once you've soloed and are comfortable with your landings, you're ready for that J.

+1... 

[Cody Stallings]

6 hours ago, Danb said:

Compare a Ford Focus with a 600 hp engine in it.

You have a normal mid sized Mooney built with a 210-220 hp engine convert to roughly a 300 hp turbocharged monster then you have a Rocket the name fits.

 

 

 

 

 

What he said.

That pretty well Covers it!!!!

[Oldguy]

15 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

The budget would possibly buy the best F in the country (except for @Marauder's) and of the three models, the F will always have the best useful load. (K will have the worst)

Or @M20F-1968 (John Breda's).

[gsxrpilot]

4 minutes ago, Oldguy said:

Or @M20F-1968 (John Breda's).

Very true! Sorry, I forgot about that one.

[Bravoman]

On 12/26/2018 at 12:54 PM, LANCECASPER said:

Here's another thing to keep in mind . .  purchase price vs. the "real" price of the machine you are maintaining

If the J was produced today it would be at least a $500,000 airplane, probably closer to $600,000 (when they went out of production twenty years ago they were pushing $250,000). Airplane parts prices prove that you are maintaining a $500,000 piece of equipment, no matter what you paid for it.($2000 landing gear motors, $2000 fuel pumps, $1000 magnetos, $8000 fuel tank re-seals,. $10,000 props, etc, etc). If you could buy a new one for $500,000 today the good news is that for a few years you wouldn't be dumping much into it.

However, any machine that is 20-40 years old is going to have to have parts replaced on a regular basis. The first year or two of ownership, almost without exception, you are going to be catching up on what hasn't been done in the past. Easily you could spend $20,000 each of those years playing catch-up, with some on this site having spent much more than that. After that you are still maintaining something, that if it sold new today would be $500,000 - $600,000. By the way, we haven't even mentioned upgrades like a new instrument panel ($75,000), a new interior ($15,000), new paint ($15,000, LED lights and strobes and beacon all the way around  ($3000). Some people go into the purchase and the upgrades are the first items they want to do and then when the maintenance items come up they don't have the ability to cover the things that keep the airplane in the air. 

Don't fool yourself into thinking that if you paid $125,000 that you are maintaining a $125,000 piece of equipment. If you decide to go into it upfront knowing that you are dealing with a half million dollar toy, it doesn't make the checks easier to write, it just makes writing them less confusing.  

That’s very well said. I certainly learned that after I paid $170,000 for a very well maintained low time example(930 hrs when I bought it) and then had the unforeseen cost of a factory reman which I needed a couple years into ownership to the tune of about 75k. It’s not for kids as they say.

[rbridges]

coming out of the 172, any mooney will seem like a huge step in speed.  Barring the need for a turbo, I'd go for a J.  Your budget will allow you to get a really nice one.  

[FloridaMan]

I still haven't figured out what I plan to do with my F. If/when I sell it, your budget would be able to afford it and modernize the panel. It's got some desirable things as of right now such as a fresh engine, the LoPresti cowling, Powerflow exhaust and the paint is perfect except for where it's been touched up, but is not showing age. The negative is that it's a higher time airframe at just under 6000 hours. My IA thinks it's worth 90k; Jimmy at All American said 70k. I'm leaning towards turning it into a partnership and taking on 3-4 partners so I can have something to put holes in the sky with and a reliable backup for when the Rocket is down for maintenance. I'm having a tough time parting with it as I see the Rocket as an intermediate plane before a light jet and at that point having a small plane like an F model would be good for local operations. 

[alextstone]

On 12/26/2018 at 9:55 AM, KLRDMD said:

The M is turbocharged but does not run well LOP.

The above statement is not necessarily true.  I (and many others on this forum) fly a Bravo ALWAYS LOP and the engine runs smoothly, the CHT's are 380 or below, and I see a TAS of 180KTS at 14.5 GPH at 16K feet.  This is with TKS installed and a mid-time engine.  If I go higher, I enjoy higher speeds than that, although with the trips I take, the mid-teens make sense.   I do have GAMI injectors.

 

Alex

[PT20J]

Check on insurance costs. Turbos may be a challenge to insure economically without an instrument rating.

[Jim Peace]

“”C””

[Shiny moose]

My .02

figure out your real needs for an airplane(runaways, DA, normal distances you expect to fly, elevations enroute needed for direct, seats needed, useful load needed, range requirements for distances single leg, descent requirements, mods needed,  look at future needs changing) find the model that fits those requirements, could be a C, E, F, J, K or other, buy the best maintained airplane you can afford and afford  to continue maintaining properly. Items you will need and or want  IFR GPS, WAAS, ADSB, ENGINE MONITOR,  AUTOPILOT, SPEEDBRAKES, LONG RANGE FUEL,  (all but 1 will save you fuel and time) cheaper for you if someone else has installed these already. Get a proper pre buy inspection (annual) by a Mooney mechanic or MSC. 

[ToddCC22]

I appreciate all of your opinions and every one makes for more thought. It is great to get “grounded” as I always want more. Looks like I’ll turn my thoughts to an F when the time comes. This fills the time that the weather won’t let me work on the practical flying side.  Thanks all!

[Shadrach]

On 12/26/2018 at 6:35 PM, Danb said:

Compare a Ford Focus with a 600 hp engine in it.

You have a normal mid sized Mooney built with a 210-220 hp engine convert to roughly a 300 hp turbocharged monster then you have a Rocket the name fits.

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 12/27/2018 at 1:03 AM, Cody Stallings said:

What he said.

That pretty well Covers it!!!!

As much as I like the idea of 300HP on the business end of a Mooney.  The comparison is extreme hyperbole.  I've seen several Rockets depart ahead of and behind other Mooneys in a group.  The way people talk about them, you half expect a tire screeching burnout when the throttle is advanced.  I just don't think it's that dramatic.  My horse sense tells me that in a race, a lightly loaded E model would be the first to break ground and the first to 1000ft (at SL altitudes). 

 When one accounts for the extra weight of the conversion, the numbers aren't any thing like the focus example: 

1967 F model (mine)

200HP

1681lbs  empty

Power to weight ratio .119 HP per lb

Weight to power ratio. 8.4lbs per HP

Rocket

300HP

2230lbs Empty

Power to weight ratio .134 HP per lb

Weight to power ratio 7.4lbs per HP

Stock Focus

123HP

2935lbs

Power to weight ratio .042 HP per lb

Weight to power ratio 24lbs per HP

Focus ST with mods

600HP

3434lbs (estimated)

Power to weight ratio .175 HP per lb

Weight to power ratio 5.7  lbs per HP

The Modded Focus ST wins the day, but not by as much as I'd have thought!

The only long body Mooney I've ever flown in was a Bravo. My expectations had been set so high that it was a disappointment.  Yes it was fine aircraft and yes it was very capable. However, it did not climb appreciably better than my F to our cruising Altitude of 5K, where we trued out at 175kts.  We were about 16% (25kts) faster than my F burning almost 100% more fuel (20ish gph if memory serves).  Now I know that I did not get to experience the aircraft in it's element (>12,000ft) and I know the numbers are impressive. It's just that no matter how impressive the performance, it will always pale in comparison to the hype.

Edited December 28, 2018 by Shadrach

[Cody Stallings]

4 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

 

As much as I like the idea of 300HP on the business end of a Mooney.  The comparison is extreme hyperbole.  I've seen several Rockets depart ahead of and behind other Mooneys in a group.  The way people talk about them, you half expect a tire screeching burnout when the throttle is advanced.  I just don't think it's that dramatic.  My horse sense tells me that in a race, a lightly loaded E model would be the first to break ground and the first to 1000ft (at SL altitudes). 

 When one accounts for the extra weight of the conversion, the numbers aren't any thing like the focus example: 

1967 F model (mine)

200HP

1681lbs  empty

Power to weight ratio .119 HP per lb

Weight to power ratio. 8.4lbs per HP

Rocket

300HP

2230lbs Empty

Power to weight ratio .134 HP per lb

Weight to power ratio 7.4lbs per HP

Stock Focus

123HP

2935lbs

Power to weight ratio .042 HP per lb

Weight to power ratio 24lbs per HP

Focus ST with mods

600HP

3434lbs (estimated)

Power to weight ratio .175 HP per lb

Weight to power ratio 5.7  lbs per HP

The Modded Focus ST wins the day, but not by as much as I'd have thought!

The only long body Mooney I've ever flown in was a Bravo. My expectations had been set so high that it was a disappointment.  Yes it was fine aircraft and yes it was very capable. However, it did not climb appreciably better than my F to our cruising Altitude of 5K, where we trued out at 175kts.  We were about 16% (25kts) faster than my F burning almost 100% more fuel (20ish gph if memory serves).  Now I know that I did not get to experience the aircraft in it's element (>12,000ft) and I know the numbers are impressive. It's just that no matter how impressive the performance it will always pale in comparison.

Ill take that Bet!!!

The Rocket will use a little more Rwy, but once the Nose is pointed towards the satellites in space, I think it’s done with for the E.

No disrespect to the E crowd at all, having flown a C ,E ,G an F before my Current Mooney, the E was the Best performer.

As far as the Smokey Burnout TopFuel style takeoff, Power management is a slower process with the TSIO vs IO.

When it finally does get spooled up(31’+) you will feel what I’m talking about.

[Shadrach]

1 minute ago, Cody Stallings said:

Ill take that Bet!!!

The Rocket will use a little more Rwy, but once the Nose is pointed towards the satellites in space, I think it’s done with for the E.

No disrespect to the E crowd at all, having flown a C ,E ,G an F before my Current Mooney, the E was the Best performer.

As far as the Smokey Burnout TopFuel style takeoff, Power management is a slower process with the TSIO vs IO.

When it finally does get spooled up(31’+) you will feel what I’m talking about.

I'll take that bet in my F which looks almost identical to your old one.  However, we have to do it Jan, Feb or March and we have to do it at non turbo altitudes. With just me and 2.5hrs of fuel, I can do 1500FPM or more all day long below 3K where I live in the winter time.

[mike_elliott]

If you really want to get your butt kicked Ross, challenge a 310 HP Type S at same weight to 10K feet. Your F is a great plane, but there is no replacement for displacement here..

[gsxrpilot]

I take off side by side (Element) with an M20E and my 252 on a regular basis. And if I'm not paired with Bucko's E, I'm launching next to Doc's 231. 

The M20E will leave me behind on the take-off every time. But as we climb out, I start to catch up pretty quickly.

The 231 is the dog of the group and can't seem to catch anyone for the first several thousand feet. And it never catches the 252.

A lightly loaded E will probably get out of a shorter field than any other Mooney, I'd expect.

[Shadrach]

6 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

If you really want to get your butt kicked Ross, challenge a 310 HP Type S at same weight to 10K feet. Your F is a great plane, but there is no replacement for displacement here..

I don’t take bets unless I have a chance of winning. I’d be down to about half the TNs hp through 8,000. I’ll pass!

[mike_elliott]

1 minute ago, Shadrach said:

I don’t take bets unless I have a chance of winning. I’d be down to about half the TNs hp through 8,000. I’ll pass!

I sure loved my F for 14 years, but the lure of the sound of fuel rushing to that big bore 6 with all the money knobs full forward is too compelling

 

[M20F]

From a practical standpoint most people don’t gain much with a faster plane or a turbo.  I spent a year flying my F for work and clocked almost 300hrs that year with a lot of 3-5hr legs.  A rocket would have maybe sliced 20-25% of those hours for a lot more gas/upkeep/insurance.  If you are flying 1hr legs a really fast plane doesn’t do much but burn a lot more money   

I also have a RayJay which I like but rarely does it make economical sense to get into class A and it really only gets used to get to 9-11k feet.  

The F has a roomy cabin as far as Mooney’s go and a fantastic useful load.  It is cheap to maintain/operate. That being said logic rarely figures into private plane ownership, thus the varying opinions. 

[gsxrpilot]

I went from a C to a 252 specifically to get more range and speed, over tall mountains sometimes. 

Two years and over 400 hours in each of the two airplanes has allowed me to make a pretty good comparison. 

• Maintenance costs - no difference (except for massive panel upgrade in the 252)
• Fuel costs - just a few percentage points higher in the 252. 
• Time saving - on typical trips for us the 252 as cut the fuel stops in half. And when combined with altitudes above 20K ft. six hour trips become four hour trips. And the longer the trip, the more pronounced the time savings.

It's important to note that our typical flight is over 400 nm. And we don't shy away from 1000+ mile flights either. I've done KSQL to 84R (SanFran to Austin) several times both directions with a single fuel stop. We couldn't do that in the C. It carried less fuel and had to go around the mountains.

Anyway... I guess the next thing I need is TKS. We'd be flying now if it weren't for the snow coming down here in FLG.

[FloridaMan]

 

 

[M20F]

4 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

 

• Maintenance costs - no difference 

Till you actually need to fix something that breaks and then there is a very big difference between a carborated 4 and a high performance turbo’ed 6 cylinder.  Somewhat disingenuous to imply cost of ownership will be the same between the 2 models.

[gsxrpilot]

13 minutes ago, M20F said:

Till you actually need to fix something that breaks and then there is a very big difference between a carborated 4 and a high performance turbo’ed 6 cylinder.  Somewhat disingenuous to imply cost of ownership will be the same between the 2 models.

I'm sure I'll eventually have to overhaul the engine or replace the turbo. But I was pretty clear in my post that this was from two years with each plane. The M20C, being a 1964, actually had things that had been deferred for years, and other things were failing just because of age. The M20K 252, being a 1987, was in much better shape and hasn't needed much other than one tank resealed $3500 and some spar cap corrosion fixed $2600. 

Maintaining the vintage Mooneys aren't cheap, unless they are left to slowly waste away. But keeping them in top condition takes money as they age. The 252 is 23 years younger and therefore is a bit cheaper to maintain... today. But you are correct, an engine or turbo will tilt the books hard the other way.

 

[bonal]

5 hours ago, Shadrach said:

I'll take that bet in my F which looks almost identical to your old one.  However, we have to do it Jan, Feb or March and we have to do it at non turbo altitudes. With just me and 2.5hrs of fuel, I can do 1500FPM or more all day long below 3K where I live in the winter time.

May I suggest you revive the old "time to climb" thread which was a fun thing between Hank and I to discover the difference between his three blade and our two blade in climb. Then you can follow the instructions and post your results.