201 vs 231

[co2bruce]

That last post was mine NOT "rbridges" SORRY.  Whats going on with this site?

[rbridges]

Quote: co2bruce

That last post was mine NOT "rbridges" SORRY.  Whats going on with this site?

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: NotarPilot

When making the cost arguments between the two airplanes I'm surprised no one has mentioned insurance costs.  Surely the insurance costs of flying behind a turbocharger would be higher than the 201.  Does anyone, who's owned both, have some side by side comparisons on insurance costs?

[NotarPilot]

Quote: Parker_Woodruff

They're really not that different, if at all. 

Rates can actually be less than some vintage Mooneys due to airframe age.

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: NotarPilot

That's pretty surprising considering I recently got quoted just under $1,100 for a vintage 1966 C model valued at $64,500.

[AndyFromCB]

180kt in a Bravo? I see 205true all the time with TKS at 17,500 on 21gph, 185true on 16gph, 175 on about 14gph. Insurance is $1300 a year for $130K hull value. What's most addictive about turbo after 2 months of ownership is the climb rate. It just doesn't stop...

As to climb speed I'd say I average about 800fpm all the way to 18,000 at 120knots burning about 26gph in climb with cowl flaps half open. I'm usually there 25 minutes after take off from Omaha after about 3 minutes of being kept down low by ATC...

[Piloto]

If you are based in Florida or the Bahamas the 201 is a better option than the 231. Besides the lower operating costs you also get better dispatchability, lower down time and higher reliability for over water flights. The turbo has no advantage in this area even for flying above weather since most summer build ups are over 30,000 feet

On the other hand if you are based in Denver the 231 makes more sense. It provides a safer take off run from high altitude airports, specially during the summer. However flying at turbo altitudes has it drawbacks like oxygen requirements, and stronger headwinds (tailwind chances are 22%). Not to mention the added maintenance cost and down time.

This is a similar dilema to de-icing equipment. I have seen a bunch of planes with rotten boots in the Caribbean because nobody use them in the tropics or even in Florida. In fact TKS is a drawback for a plane based in Puerto Rico because it never get used and takes about 100 pounds of payload.

Likewise having air conditioning for a plane based in Alaska or even Canada is a drawback because the 60+ pounds payload it takes with no added benefit.

It all depends where you are based and your mission profiles.

 

José

 

 

[Jeev]

Quote: Parker_Woodruff

That's pretty surprising considering I recently got quoted just under $1,100 for a vintage 1966 C model valued at $64,500.

[jwilkins]

 

Here are some comments I made under another thread about turbo charged engines:

My comments about a turbo:

1. It will probably cost more. How much more depends on the particular engine and your engine management techniques. Jimmy Garrison at All American said there are some 'good' engines that just seem to run great even beyond recommended TBO. Even a great engine can be screwed up by poor pilot technique.

2. I doubt if there are many left in the field but the original TSIO-360-GB engine ran hot and is typically converted to a TSIO-360-LB on MOH. I'd probably pass on a GB unless you are planning to do a MOH soon.

3. If the 231 has an intercooler installed the original MP pressure setting need to be adjusted or you may damage the engine from over boosting. If you have an intercooler doesn’t use the original POH settings.

4. The 231 is a little slower than the 201 down low, and MUCH faster up high. If you don't like to fly high, don't want to use OX, or most of your trips are too short to justify a climb to altitude, or don't fly out of high DA airports, then the turbo is a little more difficult to justify.

5. The turbo needs to be cooled down before shut down. It really takes some discipline to idle for a full five minutes (including taxi time) before shut down. I have a sign that says 'turbo cool down 5 min' that I can show the line guys so they don't stand there wondering if I forgot how to shut the engine down (Dave McGee’s suggestion).

6. I REALLY like my 231. I don't expect to every go back to a non-turbo engine. Even with 8K DA I can climb up out of KPRC's airspace instead of out of it laterally. I like being able to climb above a lot of the weather and turbulence that I used to slog through. I enjoy flying the 231 between AZ and CA on the same routes that occasionally made me anxious about weather and turbulence. The 231 is a little faster. Trips that used to take 4 hours are now 3.5 or 3.6. I like the faster but didn't buy it for that.

7. I like the LR tanks. Since we are almost always only two on board the weight is not an issue. I like having a couple hours + reserve on board when the weather is marginal. The 80 gallon original tanks in my '80 have only 72 useable. Although the LR tanks hold 17 each I often put ten in each side which gives me 92 useable. I like that. I like reducing the number of items which could be potential concerns. 

8. I don't NEED the 231, but it made long trips more fun again. I don't need the turbo most of the time, but having it available is absolutely priceless. Some day I'd like to trade up to a 252 but the incremental difference between the 231 and 252 is nothing like the step up I made from a non-turbo to the 231.

If you are not already a member please consider joining MAPA (www.mooneypilots.com) and read the articles about pre-purchase inspections, flight test reports, and flight operations to compare the J and K. The incremental cost difference shown for the K above the J is really much higher than most owners see, but the articles are interesting. 

The comment about turbo cool down generated a lot of responses. Many people feel it is not necessary. I read much more about this when the comments were made. I'll continue to do it as Continental recommends it to allow engine components and turbo temps to stabilize. Obviously other opinions vary.

The wastegate controller on my 231 is not a fully automatic wastegate as the 252's have. I do need to watch my manifold pressure, but it is not as big a workload issue as I thought it might be, just another pilot task to watch. If I had the money I would have preferred a 252, but I am very happy with my 231.

My F with the 201 mods was a very capable aircraft and I never had to cancel any flights due to high DA take offs. I did keep my weights light and did check RW lengths before takeoff. I still do when the temps and DA are high. I was always able to take off and eventually climb to cruise altitude. There were times when I would have enjoyed being able to climb higher quicker to get out of the desert turbulence. My cruise altitudes now tend to be higher just because I can get up there in a reasonable time and the 231 likes higher altitudes. In the mid-teen altitudes and running LOP (GAMI injectors on a Continental) my speed is a little higher and fuel burn just slightly higher than the F. The F was a really good clean and fast plane. I'm not pushing for maximum cruise speed; I just like climbing up quicker and easier.

When I was back East (KSDC) I would never have justified a turbo except it may be easier to find TKS on a turbo aircraft, and I would have liked TKS, not for purposeful flights into FIKI, but as mitigation for when you do run into ice. Back East my biggest concerns were low IFR and Ice. In AZ it tends to be high DA, high terrain, and desert turbulence.

After I moved to Arizona I waited a year to make a change. The DA at Prescott is frequently 8500+ in the summer. The actual decision was that I did not NEED a turbo but having one made flying fun again. Some guys like circling and hunting for thermals to climb when it is 100F outside. They see it as a confirmation of their superior flying skills and technique. For me, I like the performance of the turbo. We both get up to our cruise altitude and we're both happy when we get there. For my use this just came down to a personal decision, it was not a hard black-and-white performance and cost analysis.

If I was really concerned about possible maintenance, repair, and operating costs, I would have kept the F.

Oh, regarding insurance: The K insurance is within about $50 of the F (about same hull value, again, 477T is a really nice F), but to get that, Cliff at Falcon had to shop around a bit. The company that had the insurance on 477T apparently doesn't like turbos.

My summary:

1. Turbos cost more for operating and maintenance. How much more seems to depend in part on how you treat them.

2. The pilot workload is a little higher.

3. If you do high altitude cruising, high DA airports, if you sometimes find yourself bouncing up and down in your seat, trying to will the plane to climb faster, if you have to circle to gain altitude before crossing mountains and you wish you didn't have to, you'll like the turbo.

4. If you are happy with a non-turbo plane do NOT buy a turbo just because they cost about the same as a non-turbo. There are reasons why. 

5. If the thought of a $40,000 plus engine OH will keep you up at night, don't buy a turbo.

Jim

 

 

[GeorgePerry]

Quote: astelmaszek

Insurance is $1300 a year for $130K hull value.

[231Pilot]

If you need or want the capability to go high, whether to deal with mountains, high DA, or low weather, get the 231.  I have woned both, and the 201 is less expensive and complex.  The 231 however, gives you more options to get there safely, if more expensively.

If you aren't going high, don't bother with the 231, at low altitudes you won't be impressed compared to the 201.

[AndyFromCB]

GeorgePerry,

Insurance thru nation air, company is Chartis, full in flight coverage, no deductible, airplane is hangared, private, instrument, 300 or so TT at purchase, 270TT complex.

What I find amusing is that my quote from chartis for a 75K hull value 1969 piper arrow was only about $300 lower so that one is insured with Global. The other thing I find funny is that you get a different (considerably higher) quote from chartis thru AOPA than from other brokers. Don't rebating laws apply to airplane insurance? I guess not.

[John Pleisse]

I have noticed a nose-up moment at higher altitudes in the 201 (11k-13k). I suppose this is because the plane develops so much less power. When trying to make the 201 fly high, know the plane will handle as if it would down low with the MP at 14", light on the controls and more nose up. At altitude, the 231 tracks really solid.

[jelswick]

Quote: GeorgePerry

Who's the underwriter and what's the coverage?  Full flight or ground and taxi only?

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: jelswick

 I just renewed this month and mine dropped from about $1,450/yr to $1,306/yr with Global Aerospace on my '81 J at $120K hull value (750hrs, PPL and IFR, 90+% in Mooneys) for full flight.  One thing I noticed though in reviewing it is that coverage is $1M limit of liability each occurrence and $100K per passenger limit.  Seems if there were an accident with anyone else in the plane, I'd be lucky if all i was sued for was $100K.  Just curious whether those limits seem low compared to what others are carrying.

[NotarPilot]

Quote: Parker_Woodruff

Or get $1MM CSL and get an excess policy on top of that...I've seen as high as $10MM of coverage on a Mooney M20J.

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: NotarPilot

That outta cost an arm and a leg!

[GeorgePerry]

Quote: astelmaszek

GeorgePerry,

Insurance thru nation air, company is Chartis, full in flight coverage, no deductible, airplane is hangared, private, instrument, 300 or so TT at purchase, 270TT complex.

What I find amusing is that my quote from chartis for a 75K hull value 1969 piper arrow was only about $300 lower so that one is insured with Global. The other thing I find funny is that you get a different (considerably higher) quote from chartis thru AOPA than from other brokers. Don't rebating laws apply to airplane insurance? I guess not.

[Parker_Woodruff]

Yes, rebating laws apply. Differences in quotes could be due to many things on an agent's side - such as improper data entry.

[M016576]

Quote: GeorgePerry

Who's the underwriter and what's the coverage?  Full flight or ground and taxi only?