201 vs 231

[Cris]

I agree with your point about cruise speed propaganda but I was not referencing them in my original post only the top end speed arrived at I believe at sea level wot. However my 84' 201 would consistently do 162-164 knots indicated but it was generally well under gross but also unusually fast. I think the latter 201's ie 205 models did add a few knots to the cruise speeds but 170? I don't think so. Gary, What does yours do at 75% best power on a standard day/temp??   

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: Cris

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

Gary, What does yours do at 75% best power on a standard day/temp??   

[Cris]

So may I assume that we are all agreeded that the numbers for stall speed, range etc as I posted are reasonably accurate & based on the POH for both the 201 & 231. If so it simply means the 201 will land & take off in a much shorter distance than the 231 which was my original contention & a real driver for me to switch back. In the end I found that the 201 carried more, flew faster at the lower altitudes I typically flew & cost less to operate. The 231 had more stuff to maintain since the 231's typically were better equiped than their 201 counterparts. Things like a radar altimeter that never did seem to work but $'s to repair & extra cylinders to feed as well as increased annual expenses for what ever reasons I do not know. In the end it was a better fit for the missions that I typically flew. But if I were needing to fly high.... 

[John Pleisse]

Quote: Cris

So may I assume that we are all agreeded that the numbers for stall speed, range etc as I posted are reasonably accurate & based on the POH for both the 201 & 231. If so it simply means the 201 will land & take off in a much shorter distance than the 231 which was my original contention & a real driver for me to switch back. In the end I found that the 201 carried more, flew faster at the lower altitudes I typically flew & cost more to operate. It had more stuff to maintain since the 231's typically were better equiped than their 201 counterparts. Things like a radar altimeter that never did seem to work but $'s to repair & extra cylinders to feed as well as increased annual expenses for what ever reasons I do not know. In the end it was a better fit for the missions that I typically flew. But if I were needing to fly high.... 

Absolutely....

[jlunseth]

Cris the advertised top speed is not sea level WOT.  It is whatever configuration and altitude gives the maximum speed of the aircraft within its service envelope.  In the case of normallly aspirated aircraft like the 201, that is going to happen long before the aircraft reaches its service ceiling, because of diminishing horsepower.

In the case of the original, GB engined 231, the critical altitude or point at which the aircraft could no longer produce 100% HP, was 15,000 + 500 feet.  I am going to guess that max speed was achieved at crit. altitude or something just above critical altitude.  For my 231, which has the Merlyn wastegate, critical altitude is 22,500, so my max speed might be more than the factory rated 231 mph, don't know haven't tried it.  We are talking about True Airspeed now, not IAS.  And the max TAS for the older models such as the 201 and 231 was in mph, not nm/hr.  I believe I read in one of the MAPA Log articles that the max TAS for the 252 (252 pmh) was achieved at its service ceiling of 28,000.  Am pretty sure that the Acclaim S's max TAS of 242 knots is at its service ceiling of 25,000.

In my experience, the 231 is in fact slightly slower than the 201 below about 8,000 feet.  After that the 231 pulls away, primarily because it is still making 100%HP.

Don't know what this tells you as far as a purchase decision is concerned, except maybe that the turbo's are at their best for flights of over an hour, where the climb to cruising altitude to achieve the speed advantage of the turbo, is justified.  Then again, the air is nice and smooth once you get there, and you have the place all to yourself.

[fantom]

For the record, I took off about a hundred yards behind Parker in his 252 (just a fancy 231) last month, and he wasn't any faster than me down low, but he sure could out climb me.

He's gonna be impossible with an Encore conversion ;-)

[jetdriven]

Yeah but the higher he goes the faster he goes.   Like the 201 is the ultimate NA mooney (Ovation is too, but a higher price bracket)  the 252 is the ultimate turbo Mooney, except, maybe an Acclaim.

[Cris]

Quote: jlunseth

Cris the advertised top speed is not sea level WOT.  It is whatever configuration and altitude gives the maximum speed of the aircraft within its service envelope.  In the case of normallly aspirated aircraft like the 201, that is going to happen long before the aircraft reaches its service ceiling, because of diminishing horsepower.

In my experience, the 231 is in fact slightly slower than the 201 below about 8,000 feet.  After that the 231 pulls away, primarily because it is still making 100%HP.

Don't know what this tells you as far as a purchase decision is concerned, except maybe that the turbo's are at their best for flights of over an hour, where the climb to cruising altitude to achieve the speed advantage of the turbo, is justified.  Then again, the air is nice and smooth once you get there, and you have the place all to yourself.

[fantom]

Enough already....

Anyone with a clean, glass panel, low time, NDH, Encore who wishes to trade for a very clean 201, please PM me.

[Bennett]

Just another voice in the discussion.  I currently own a 201, and previously owned a 231 modified into the 261/262 conversion.  Below 8000' or so, the 201 is a bit faster, but soon loses speed with higher altitudes.  In my case, I had a high altitude prop fitted, which really didn't kick in until about 18,000', and so I almost always "had" to go high for speed, and of course to get above quite a bit of the weather.  When I retirned to Mooneys I faced the same question: The efficient, simple 201, or the faster, higher flying, more complex 231/252/261/262.  I owned my 261 for about 16 years, (3 engines), and it served me well for my needs at that time.  It also cost me a great deal of money in the form of oxygen system maintenance, replacement of the built in bottle, turbocharger maintenance, and replacement of Turbo bits and pieces, more expensive annuals for the Continental six cylinder engine, etc, and a higher overall fuel burn.  Climbs to high altitudes take a lot of fuel.  I chose the 201 for my "new" airplane and have no regrets. Even living on the West Coast, I have found that I can find a routing to go wherever I want. 

[jlunseth]

One footnote on the climb to altitude for turbo's.  I don't think many of us climb at whatever the full rate is for the particular aircraft.  I shoot for 500-700, so a climb to 18,000 can take a half hour at, in my case, about 105 KIAS.  What most people don't understand though, is that there is no rule that says you can't just tip the nose over and descend at full cruise power.  Actually, I find I have to throttle back a little or the MP goes up an inch or two.  I make my descents at ground speeds in the 200-240 nm/hr. range, depending on tailwinds, the fuel flow is pretty nice and the engine stays nice and warm.  Leave the speedbrakes in, although I understand the later Mooneys like the Acclaim needs them deployed to avoid hitting Vne because the airframe is so slippery.  Sort of makes up for the long climb to altitude, both timewise and fuel wise.  Also, ATC won't be on you to "keep your speed up" because of that Citation behind you.  Descent needs to be started quite a long way out, depending on altitude anywhere from 50-100 nm.

[M016576]

Quote: jlunseth

One footnote on the climb to altitude for turbo's.  I don't think many of us climb at whatever the full rate is for the particular aircraft.  I shoot for 500-700, so a climb to 18,000 can take a half hour at, in my case, about 105 KIAS.  What most people don't understand though, is that there is no rule that says you can't just tip the nose over and descend at full cruise power.  Actually, I find I have to throttle back a little or the MP goes up an inch or two.  I make my descents at ground speeds in the 200-240 nm/hr. range, depending on tailwinds, the fuel flow is pretty nice and the engine stays nice and warm.  Leave the speedbrakes in, although I understand the later Mooneys like the Acclaim needs them deployed to avoid hitting Vne because the airframe is so slippery.  Sort of makes up for the long climb to altitude, both timewise and fuel wise.  Also, ATC won't be on you to "keep your speed up" because of that Citation behind you.  Descent needs to be started quite a long way out, depending on altitude anywhere from 50-100 nm.

[fantom]

Just keep in mind all those poor 231, 252 and Acclaim types are burdened will hauling the added weight, the extra cylinders, and that heavy fuel up, while burning a bigger number than us "in the clag" J types. <")">

[jlunseth]

I think most of us do a cruise climb of some kind, which is a higher airspeed than Vy.  Personally, I climb at 100%HP and get a climb rate of 5-700 and an indicated airspeed of 105, although TAS is going to be higher as you go up.  In the upper reaches of the climb you will have a TAS of around 120 knots. 

One of the MAPA instructors I have flown with has a 231 that he keeps in top shape.  The engine is younger than mine.  He tells me he does a cruise climb at 32" and gets 120 knots.  I personally found that reducing MP does not work very well in my engine, I need the fuel flow generated by 100% to keep the cylinders cool. 

The later turbo models such as the Bravo and Acclaim, and even the 252, have better cooling and induction systems.  They get great climb rates.  So some of those guys will climb at what is probably Vy and get 1,200 - 1,500 fpm. 

One trick I have found that works with my plane, is to level off for awhile before starting the cruise climb, and leave the throttle at 100%, let the plane speed up.  Cruise climb speed will be significantly higher than if you leave the field at Vy and try to continue the climb all the way to altitude at Vy.

[David Mazer]

I climb with an IAS 130 - 140 kts in my Rocket.  Depending on the temperature (here in FL at 100 degrees) and load, I usually climb at 900 to 1,200 fpm.  I usually slow down for a couple min at 16,000 ft to keep everything cool before I continue up.  I don't find climbing faster (slower airspeed) worthwhile because I just can't see over the nose and see where I'm going.

[John Pleisse]

Quote: jlunseth

I think most of us do a cruise climb of some kind, which is a higher airspeed than Vy.  Personally, I climb at 100%HP and get a climb rate of 5-700 and an indicated airspeed of 105, although TAS is going to be higher as you go up.  In the upper reaches of the climb you will have a TAS of around 120 knots. 

One of the MAPA instructors I have flown with has a 231 that he keeps in top shape.  The engine is younger than mine.  He tells me he does a cruise climb at 32" and gets 120 knots.  I personally found that reducing MP does not work very well in my engine, I need the fuel flow generated by 100% to keep the cylinders cool. 

The later turbo models such as the Bravo and Acclaim, and even the 252, have better cooling and induction systems.  They get great climb rates.  So some of those guys will climb at what is probably Vy and get 1,200 - 1,500 fpm. 

One trick I have found that works with my plane, is to level off for awhile before starting the cruise climb, and leave the throttle at 100%, let the plane speed up.  Cruise climb speed will be significantly higher than if you leave the field at Vy and try to continue the climb all the way to altitude at Vy.

[fantom]

Quote: jlunseth

One trick I have found that works with my plane.....

[jlunseth]

Sorry, I thought everyone knew.  I have written about it enough.

1981 M20K 231 with the Merlyn wastegate and Turboplus intercooler

[fantom]

Yeah, I knew that, but....wouldn't it help everyone if ALL of us included make, model and home base in our signature block?

[rainman]

I recently completed the process of shopping for a 201-vs-231 and found the www.mooneypilots.com article comparing them to be very useful.  My decision to purchase the 231 came down to my flying mission which would include regular flights into Albuquerque during all the seasons (that includes hot summers).  The turbo capability would help with the higher altitude climbs and DA issues.  If nearly all your flying will be below 10,000ft then a 201 will fill your needs.  If you plan on flying into or over the mountains then the additional capability of the turbo makes a lot of sense.  I watched the market for about a year and whenever I lamented that I had missed out on the "perfect" plane, a month later another great one showed up. I watched controller.com and trade-a-plane then consulted a Mooney specialist broker to locate my plane and handle the pre-buy inspection. After reading the e-book available on the Mooneyland.com website, I realized there is a lot the know about each model and year, and I wanted someone very knowledgable to help me.  Definitely take the time to see/fly the plane yourself if you can.  Photos don't really tell you the true condition of the interior/plexiglass/paint.  My plane's performance is exactly as described but the interior was original and worse than it appeared, it's just falling apart, so I'm in the process of replacing it as we speak. I love the plane and remain excited about flying it.

[Lood]

Another big thorn in the flesh regarding the difference between real world figures compared to those in the POH is the actual empty weight. You'll search very long to find any airplane with the same empty weight than when it left the factory. I'd like to see the 201 that weighs in empty at anything below 1700lbs that's worth mentioning. Most will be quite a few 100lbs heavier and this will reflect in all performace figures. Same goes for the 231.

[M016576]

Quote: Lood

Another big thorn in the flesh regarding the difference between real world figures compared to those in the POH is the actual empty weight. You'll search very long to find any airplane with the same empty weight than when it left the factory. I'd like to see the 201 that weighs in empty at anything below 1700lbs that's worth mentioning. Most will be quite a few 100lbs heavier and this will reflect in all performace figures. Same goes for the 231.

[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?

[rbridges]

As a Florida Pilot, and having owned both in the past the real world costs of the 231 are much higher. (Fuel, top overhauls, insurance) That being said I think the 231 flys better (more stability due to the weight and incresed length) You also can not fly above the weather in a 231 in Florida. It may be great over the mountains in the west but thunderstorms with 30 - 40 thousand ft tops are not top-able.