201 vs 231

[panther1400]

Does anyone have personal experience of why they chose to go back to a 201 after a 231, or maybe they are very happy they switched to a 231, or any good articles on the web that would help me make the decision on which way to go.  I can see using the 231 capabilities on an hour or longer trip but with zero turbo time I have no clue as to answer of the 201, 231 question.

 

The 201 is a great airplane and would suit me for alot of my flying but a 231 would increase my options and they are really close on the price to buy the plane for what they are, but not sure what the cost of owning is for the two planes?

 

Sorry to ask this because I'm sure its been talked to death I just haven't found the threads.

 

[jetdriven]

We considered 231s along with the 201 for potential purchase. The acquitisiton costs are similar. But based on the fact the engine is a lot more expensive(10-20K more), more maintenance with a 6 cylinder turbo than a 4 cylinder lycoming, 20-30% more fuel burn below 7,000 feet, less useful load, and the large numbers of them needing cylinders and top ovehauls made it around 20-30% more expensive overall to fly.  So we passed, and bought a 201.  Even that plane is something like 10-12K a year ot own if it doesnt fly at all.  Still, if you live out west and need it, its awesome. Nothing bette than your own personal airliner. But comes with a cost.

[M016576]

I own a J, so I'm automatically biased... (disclaimer up front).

The K's turbo-charger allows for a faster climb to altitude, and a higher cruise speed at higher altitudes.  The cost associated with this gain is higher maintenance costs, fuel burn and the incorperation of an O2 system (extra cost).  The service ceiling of the K is 24,000ft, vs the J's 18,800ft.  In my experience, rarely would you *need* to climb over 14.5k in a light single.  If you plan on doing it often, perhaps for longer trips (3+hours), then the K would be a great choice.  If you plan on doing the majority of your flying at or below 14,500, I'd stick with the J.  The J is cheaper to operate and typically has a higher useful load.

Despite what some might lead you to believe, there is nothing that prohibits you from flying in the west, or in the rockies without a turbo charger.  I got my PPL flying the majority of my time in a C172 in the rocky mountains of central idaho.  The wings don't fall off.  Mountain wave turbuluence doesn't magically seek non-turbo'ed aircraft... and if you do find yourself in a moderate to severe downdraft or MWT due to poor pre-flight planning or lack of mountain flying experience & knowledge, the turbo charger won't "climb you out" of trouble over the NA motor.  The sink rates tend to be much higher than what any light single can manage.

What the K buys you in the west is the ability to climb to altitude quickly, which means less time on the runway at higher DA airports, and less time spent circling as you climb out of valleys, and over mountains, etc.  Once you're at altitude and cruising, the advantage of the turbo is about 10-15kts.  Over 2 hours, that's approx 12 minutes faster than a J while burning approx 4-6 more gallons of fuel.  Once you stretch your trips out to 3+ hours, the time difference climbs up over 20 minutes (that's about where I personally draw the "significantly faster" line, but YMMV).

I guess my point is this:  You don't lose capability by not having a turbo charger, you just need to tweak your mission planning factors/considerations a bit between the two.  If you go take a walk around the ramps at KSUN, KMMH, KJAC, KHND or KCOS, you'll find plenty of NA aircraft that are being flown on a daily basis.  The real thing that you need to worry about up in the Mountains is icing in the winter... something that a Turbo charger typically can't help you much with.

Again, that's all just my opinion... YMMV...

[peter]

We considered the maintenance cost when we purchased our 231.  However, when looked at from a mission perspective we rationalized that the faster cruise speeds of the 231 meant it would require fewer flight hours to fly the same missions, and thus cost per mile flown was not all that different between J and K.

Having said that, the airplane is not cheap to operate, but we have really not had any maintenance issues that are related to the engine/turbo.

Cost of engine overhaul is definitely higher.  We managed this by finding an airplane with a low time engine from a top notch shop and will enjoy the airplane for the many, many years before an overhaul will be needed. 

We are extremely happy with our 231 purchase decision. These aircraft are generally better equipped and the turbo provides more options vis a vis weather, terrain, and density altitude. I doubt I will ever own a non-turbo aircraft again.

On the down side, the 231 turbo is finicky, even with the Merlyn upper deck pressure controller installed. If you can afford it, I'd recommend a 252 (or a 262 conversion) over the 231.

[jetdriven]

Option creep enters into the equation and you can buy two early J's for the cost of one 252.   A turbo aircraft has the option of flying above icing and in clear air, but it doesnt come cheap.  If you discount the engine, prop, and accesory reserve (something approaching twice a 201, or around 25$ an hour), the costs are quite similar.  Eventually that 40K bill comes due, however.  Just be prepared.

 

Also, our useful load is 974 LB.  A friend of ours has a '79 231 and his useful is I believe 800 lb.  So, taking more than two people, we can go farther on one fuel stop or at least the same, and the time advantage of the 231 disappears. 

 

Still, the 201 doesnt have much reserve climb ability at 10,000' and it would be nice to have some forced atmosphere to the engine.  A 252 is still cheaper than a Bonanza, too

[David Mazer]

There are many good points made above. I have a Mooney Rocket and I fly an M20F. When I did the numbers, the variable cost per mile after fuel, engine/prop reserve, and oil came out the same. I'm not sure if the numbers quoteded above take the same fators into account. No question aquisition and overhaul costs are higher though. Also, I can cruise at about the same speed as a J with the same fuel burn but it doesn't make sense to do so since the engine time comes into play. I ended up chosing the Rocket as my mission was long and the K does that a little better IMO. I manage my useful load with fuel. 80 gal of fuel adds about 180 pounds of useful load and still gives me about a 600 nm range with reserve.

They are both great airplanes. You probably won't go wrong with either.

[DonMuncy]

I have a 231 and have nver owned a 201. My perspective is that on about 5% of my flights I am very glad I have the capability to quickly get high enough to see the weather and the ability to climb over almost anything you can't easily fly around. That, to me, is very comforting.

However, this comes at a cost. For a large part of my flying, (I believe) a 201 can equal my ordinary cruising speed , at a lower operating cost. Also, it appears to me that the 201 Lycoming is almost bullet-proof, and the Continental requires periodic cylinder replacement. This is just my experience and belief.

Most of the time, the 201 is the better choice, but on those flights where you need it, the 231 is a lot better choice. What is that worth to you. I am not at all unhappy with my choice.

Don

[rbridges]

Quote: DonMuncy

I have a 231 and have nver owned a 201. My perspective is that on about 5% of my flights I am very glad I have the capability to quickly get high enough to see the weather and the ability to climb over almost anything you can't easily fly around. That, to me, is very comforting.

 

It may only be 5% of the time that you want/need the turbo, but to some people, that's enough to justify it. 

[aviatoreb]

Quote: rbridges

[Parker_Woodruff]

I upgraded from a 201 to a 252 and love it.  It will cost more.  But it'll be worth the expense when I'm busting 270-300 knots in the flight levels from Texas to Florida in the winter.

The reason I have this plane and not a seaplane is so I can fly quickly from TX to FL.

[Cris]

I had several 201's prior to purchasing a very well equipped 231. I flew out of a small airport (N07 Lincoln Park NJ) with trees at one end. The 231 takes longer to land & takeoff together with all the caveats as well as benefits mentioned above. I also hated the fact that I'd be down but had to wait 5-10 mins for the turbo to cool down so as not to cook the bearings. Same on T/O (warmup) but not a problem at a great big airport BTW. Although I never had an issue landing (except for a few twigs in the gear from a night landing) I was never really comfortable coming over the trees & trying to stop before the fence at the other end of the runway. Most trips were west/east & I found that going west I always flew low to avoid the winds so I could not use the turbo efficiently but I was still paying the usefull load & maintenance penalty. East bound although faster I had to use O2 so I ended up flying at 11K unless the winds were really stong above giving me great ground speed. I never flew higher than 18K mostly due to mag issues the A/C seemed to have. After a while I gave up & went back to a 201. As many have said it depends on the mission & today I fly an Screamin' Eagle which has long legs, high useful load,speed, easy maintenance & fits the mission perfectly-for me.  

[fantom]

Quote: Parker_Woodruff

I upgraded from a 201 to a 252 and love it.  It will cost more.  But it'll be worth the expense when I'm busting 270-300 knots in the flight levels from Texas to Florida in the winter.

The reason I have this plane and not a seaplane is so I can fly quickly from TX to FL.

[jlunseth]

I have the 231 and don't think I would ever be happy with a normally aspirated airplane.  If your mission is all trips under an hour, then the turbo is probably not worth it (you would make the climb to turbo altitude and then have to start your descent right away).  For anything longer it is definitely worth it.  Typical tops in the midwest spring through fall are 12 - 16,000.   Easy to overtop with a turbo.  Once above those tops the air is glass smooth, and it is easy to see and avoid the cells you can't fly through.  I routinely fly in the 18-22k range unless winds aloft make it impractical.  IMHO you are way safer up there.  With a glide ratio better than 12:1, you can go 25 miles at 12k, 35 miles at 18k.  We made a crossing of Lake Michigan last year and calculated that with the good tailwind and at 19k, we could coast well inland of the eastern shore if we lost the engine, from the moment we broke the western edge of the lake. In Minnesota, where I live, you would have to work really hard to find a place where you would be out of glide range of an airport from cruising altitude, and that generally holds true until you are out in the western Dakotas, there the airports a further apart.  If you fly solo alot and are used to the bumps, then flying below 12k is probably not a big deal.  If you carry passengers, particularly passengers prone to airsickness, getting above the bumps is easy with a turbo and makes your trip much more pleasant.  Not to mention generally faster.  If the winds aloft are adverse, then you just have to fly low down and you lose nothing to the normally aspirated aircraft.

Was just out in CO for the MAPA PPP mountain flying course and landed at Leadville.  Take off and landing at 10,000 is a nonevent in a turbo aircraft.  I little longer float, but that is it.     

Someone said the 231 takes longer to land.  I have had just the opposite experience.  You can convince the 231 to fall like a rock if you want to, even faster with speedbrakes, but it will drop really well without speedbrakes also.  To my feel, the 201 is a lighter version of the same plane, and wants to float quite a bit more than the 231.  The 231 excels at short field landings if you know what you are doing.  In the upper midwest most of my landings are at small airstrips with runways in the 2,800 - 3,200 range.  I am usually off the runway by the midpoint. 

If cross country trips are on the menu, or the wish list, you will not regret a turbo.  From MN, we have flown to New York, the Bahamas, MT and CO, OK and TX, and flew the plane back from AZ when I bought it.  It also has the versatility to fly short hops.  We have the Minnesota Passport Program in our state, where you fly around and collect stamps from the airports in the state.  This past weekend I did a dozen airports in the SE corner of the state, shutting the engine down at each stop and restarting.  No hard start issues at all.  The airports in that area are only 10-15 minutes apart, so rarely went above 2,500, and all were on relatively short asphalt strips. 

And the "5 minute cooldown" is old news.  GAMI/APS has the data on that, and the time from your throttle back to land until you pull into the terminal does the trick.  The turbine temps actually increase if you sit with the engine at idle on the ramp for 5 minutes. 

I would agree with the recommendation to look at a 252, and I would also suggest FIKI unless you live somewhere where ice is never an issue.  

 

[Cris]

Quote: panther1400

Does anyone have personal experience of why they chose to go back to a 201 after a 231, or maybe they are very happy they switched to a 231 ....

[jlunseth]

The paper numbers unfortunately don't mean a whole lot.  They are max. rates and numbers, and not the numbers you will see in day to day operations.  I sure would like to see 191 kts. in cruise in my 231.  My Bravo friends, with a longer body and bigger engine, flight plan for just 180.  I flight plan for 165, and if I get up in the low 20's maybe 170.  If I was willing to cruise at 90%+ power maybe I would see the book number. 

Ceiling is also a relative term.  The normally aspirated 201 may be able to reach 18,800, but is losing power every step of the way and does not have much left if it can get to 18,800.  Would take you alot of patience to get there.  My 231 with the Merlyn produces 100%HP to 22,500, so climb rate remains good to that point.  The original GB 231's have a much lower crit. alt (about 15k) where they start to lose climb rate, and also likely experience heating problems as they get higher. 

[Parker_Woodruff]

Lots of innacuracies in both the M20J and M20K performance stats quoted above.

[Cris]

These numbers came from www.pilotfriend.com. Keep in mind that differant year K & J models do vary somewhat. If memory serves me right these are probably indicative of early models for both & are representative of my 78/79/81/84 201's & my 82 231K. What do you have that is differant?  

[Cris]

I also agree that the max cruise speed for the 231 seems high as I only flight plan for a 190 Kts but at 8000'. I think the way Mooney got that number was the same way as they got the 201 number- flat out at sea level which generated max horsepower. Obviously no one really flies that way. In my case I was not really commenting on cruise but rather on the landing over 50' & the roll out which I guarantee you is much greater in the 231 than in a 201. The 231 is a substantially heavier A/C than the 201 & requires longer distances to stop. I don't think the early 231 had upgraded brakes like the long bodies. Also the stall speed is higher in the 231 so it lands faster again taking longer to come to a stop. It is one of the reasons that I went back to a 201 which is what Panther1400 asked.  

[jlunseth]

I am sure you are exactly right about the ground roll.  The difference between landing a 231 and a 201, at least the way it feels to me, is a difference in speed management before you get to the ground.  I can be very high in the 231, throttle back to 80 KIAS or less, and helicopter in without building up ground speed.  The 201 I used to fly would not do that for me, at least not nearly as well as the 231.  As a result, it was much easier to find yourself in a float over the runway with the 201 if you did not get on top of your altitude and approach speed further out. 

I experience the practical effect of this in two circumstances.  One, when flying an instrument approach, especially approaches without a glideslope, it is not at all uncommon to find yourself very high when the field becomes visible.  I find I can bring the 231 in for a successful landing where I could not do it with the 201.  Second, many of the fields I fly into are not only short but they are gusty, or up on a bluff where downdrafts occur just before the runway.  My home field, KFCM, is certainly this way on all sides, with 36 being the worst.  It is good to be able to come in high on final, it helps to avoid being sucked down before you get to the runway.

These are pilot skill issues, and probably shaving hairs like whether you prefer Johnsville brats or the homemade ones from the butcher counter!  A good pilot can do a short field with either plane.  Probably my skills are better now after a few hundred hours with the 231, than they were when I flew the 201 before that.  Just my perception that speed management is easier with the 231 than with the 201.

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: Cris

These numbers came from www.pilotfriend.com. Keep in mind that differant year K & J models do vary somewhat. If memory serves me right these are probably indicative of of early models for both & are representative of my 78/79/84 201's & my 83 231K. What do you have that is differant?  

[Cris]

Quote: Parker_Woodruff

The range terribly wrong on the M20J.  The stall speeds are not necessarily correct.  According to the data shown there, they are all based on entirely different sets of atmospheric conditions.

[fantom]

Quote: Cris

 Ok I am often wrong but persistent in finding the correct answer......is there some thing you can point me to that differs from what I have tied to correctly point out?    

[John Pleisse]

Mooney 201: I went to Hot Springs VA last week (3772 field elev) on a 90 degree day. I reviewed my performance #'s over and over. I didn't want to beleive them so much that I read them 4 times. I departed rwy 25 in calm winds, I was airborn in just over 2000 feet and had a generous climb rate of near 600ft per minute......almost exactly by the book. I had calculated my DA to be just a hair under 7,000 ft (overly conservative margin). While not a 231, I was very pleased with this performance (near fuel fuel, just me and lots of campnig gear).

Also Gary...little known fact about Kromer. Many of those years he presided over MAPA, he flew a Bonanza. I am certain his 231 numbes are correct, but interesting trivia.

[Cris]

Quote: fantom

We know, we know

Those numbers, which I've seen before, aren't even in the ballpark. In your quest for something more accurate, you could start with some excellent articles by Bill Kromer, former Mooney test pilot and President.

http://www.mooneypilots.com/ 

[John Pleisse]

Quote: Cris

We know, we know

Those numbers, which I've seen before, aren't even in the ballpark. In your quest for something