J or K?

[c131fr]

I'm looking at getting my first Mooney after about 20 years of flying my old 172.  The mission is a weekly trip of 128nm one way, once per week (so 256 nm round trip once a week), and then a monthly trip of 220nm to visit the folks.  My weekly trip with the Cessna takes about an hour and a half engine start to shut down, so that kills 3 hours of an 8 hour day, which is why I'm looking at getting a Mooney.  I'm hoping to cut that down by a third.

So, I found a few airplanes near me that are within my budget and are equipped well enough for me.  Two are J models, and one is a K model.  My manly manhood says get the K because real men turbocharge six-bangers, but the J's are actually in a little better shape (the K has original 40 year old paint and seats, and both J's have fairly new paint and interiors).  For my mission, in reality would you get the K over the J for the same money (this particular K is actually $5k cheaper, with <1000 hour engine, where the J's are both just over 1000 hours)?  I'm thinking that the K would only be of benefit if I was flying 300-400 nm on average, but you guys are the experts.  What do you think?

Edited December 30, 2019 by c131fr

[carusoam]

Get a firebird to keep you manly manhood busy... add a turbo or SC for more fun... rip through the gears at the local 1/4 mile track...

Then determine if your mission is going to change...

Your Cessna doesn’t have a TC does it?

Will having a TC change the altitude you want to fly at?

Do you have any limitations regarding O2 use?

Flying in IMC over mountains is a good reason to have a turbo...

There are also levels of turbochargers to have...

You can add a TN to your J...

You can add upgraded MP controllers to your K, and an intercooler too...

you probably don’t want to accidentally buy a TC’d plane because it feels cool...

The good part... only you know what you want...

Read up on the topics listed here, then decide...

Do you have an IR already?

Notes: I have a FB, I don’t fly at O2 levels, I’d Want to go Acclaim the next time I buy a plane... 

My local 1/4 mile track isn’t operating anymore... barely make it into third, going through the trap... what am I going to do with the other three gears in the tranny?

Best regards,

-a-

[smwash02]

For your mission if you include the per POH 5 minute cool-down (debate on this elsewhere), the J would probably be faster door to door and cheaper to operate.

You don't mention location, but unless elevation is an issue, get a better equipped J. It will suit you better, in my opinion.

[c131fr]

Nice, thanks.  I'm in Illinois, both airport altitudes I'll be mostly using are under 1000' MSL, and I doubt I'd routinely fly over 7000'.  I'm strongly leaning towards one of the J's, but man that six cylinder is sexy...

[carusoam]

Now we got that out of the way...

Lets talk about instrument panels...

Do you have one?

Do you want one?

Do you need one...

Also...

Do you have any Class Bs you want to leap over?

If you are based outside Ohare and have to cross the lake a strong climb requirement would make me want to consider a more powerful option...

Best regards,

-a-

[c131fr]

I'm under one.  The airplane would be based out of 3CK, NW "corner" of Ohare's Class B.  What I typically do is climb to 3500 out of 3CK and shoot down south until I'm out from under the arc, then climb to about 5500 and head southeast, depending on conditions.  I think the J is probably the wisest decision on many fronts.  I just need somebody to slap me in the face....

[c131fr]

Oh, the instrument panel.  No, I'm happy with all three airplanes' panels.  They all have a descent auto-pilot, Garmin 530W or better (the J I'm leaning towards has a 750), and all three have good engine monitors.  The K has altitude select, which is nice- the others just have the up down button.  It's a compromise I guess.  I wish I was rich and powerful like some of you guys and just get a new Ovation...

[carusoam]

Don’t be confused...

I got an O, because I drove a firebird... for decades...

Rich, no...

Powerful, only if number of posts written... counts as power.
 

Spend excess dough on training...

Look forward to transition training, IR training, MAPA training....

Take a flying vacation...

Get to the Mooney Summit...

Enjoy!

Best regards,

-a-

[Cruiser]

The K would be a waste of resource. you don't need the turbo and it is a handicap down low (<15000') you won't see any value. Burning six cylinders vs four cylinders is adding 1/3 the fuel. The J will be more efficient. 

How are you dealing with ice in that region of the country. ?

[MarkD34M]

And, the J is a bit faster at the altitudes you will fly. I owned a K model for over 10 years and loved if for the long trips where I could climb up but in reality, the J would have been a better option for my profile. The cost, care and feeding of the TSIO 360 is significantly more than the J (6 cylinders, turbo, etc). Just my thoughts.

[ArtVandelay]

Nice, thanks.  I'm in Illinois, both airport altitudes I'll be mostly using are under 1000' MSL, and I doubt I'd routinely fly over 7000'.  I'm strongly leaning towards one of the J's, but man that six cylinder is sexy...

Well if you think 6 is sexy, we have someone who has a 8 cylinder Comanche 400. J, no doubt. Or get a NA 6 cylinder, Missle or Ovation.

And make sure it has ADSB.

 

Tom

[jrwilson]

8 minutes ago, Cruiser said:

The K would be a waste of resource. you don't need the turbo and it is a handicap down low (<15000') you won't see any value. Burning six cylinders vs four cylinders is adding 1/3 the fuel. The J will be more efficient. 

How are you dealing with ice in that region of the country. ?

While I agree with Cruiser in this case, it doesn't seem like a K would really benefit him in the low altitudes of Illinois; BUT, I have to stick up for the mighty 231 in a few things...

1:  The turbo is not a handicap below 15,000.  A 231 will outrun a 201 at most altitudes, with the big difference starting above 10,000.  Yes, you'll burn more fuel and the 201 is more efficient, below 10,000.

2:  In this case, it sounds like the 201s are better equipped, but on average, the 231 came with more standard equipment, such as oxygen, folding rear seats, one piece belly, long range tanks, etc.

3:  No, it isn't 1/3 more fuel...more like 1/4 (But yes, more fuel burn, less efficient)

4:  Don't underestimate the value of a turbo for high density altitude days.  While I routinely use high altitude airports so I really get the turbo benefit, it could also help on a hot and humid Illinois summer day too.

So, in conclusion, 231s are great.  If you disagree, you're entitled to your wrong opinion   

[Oldguy]

Which plane has been flown more regularly? An engine run consistently will give better life (i.e. lower $$$) than one sitting for long periods of time. And since you are giving indirect information about the K, it sounds like a 231. From my reading on MS, the 231 seems to have a higher level of maintenance than the 252/Encore versions of the K, but do not take my work for it.

But lastly, realize the initial investment in purchasing the plane will probably be just a fraction of what you will spend over the long run. A difference of $5K can be eaten up in one annual when you have to do turbo or cylinder work.

Why, yes, I do fly a J. 

[ArtVandelay]

While I agree with Cruiser in this case, it doesn't seem like a K would really benefit him in the low altitudes of Illinois; BUT, I have to stick up for the mighty 231 in a few things...
1:  The turbo is not a handicap below 15,000.  A 231 will outrun a 201 at most altitudes, with the big difference starting above 10,000. 

He said he rarely goes above 7000’, Im betting the 201 will keep up with 231 at that altitude or below.



Tom

[jrwilson]

13 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said:

He said he rarely goes above 7000’, Im betting the 201 will keep up with 231 at that altitude or below.



Tom

Probably pretty close, the K would likely beat it, but not by much and certainly not worth the fuel difference at those low altitudes.  But, 231's are still great!  Besides, who wants to fly so low?  

[gsxrpilot]

I'll agree and disagree with @jrwilson. I have a 252 which is like a 231 only better  but I still like the M20J for any flight below 10K feet. 

I LOVE my 252 and wouldn't trade it for anything short of an MU2. But if I were in your shoes... in Illinois, I'd have an M20J. 

 

[jrwilson]

1 minute ago, gsxrpilot said:

I'll agree and disagree with @jrwilson. I have a 252 which is like a 231 only better  

 

Yeah, yeah, the 252 is pretty nice...I guess    But mine has a ski tube, so I think mine wins!

[gsxrpilot]

23 minutes ago, jrwilson said:

Yeah, yeah, the 252 is pretty nice...I guess    But mine has a ski tube, so I think mine wins!

I can't argue that! I need a ski tube.

[smwash02]

49 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

I can't argue that! I need a ski tube.

I'm starting on mine here shortly, have aluminum on order for it.

[smwash02]

2 hours ago, c131fr said:

Oh, the instrument panel.  No, I'm happy with all three airplanes' panels.  They all have a descent auto-pilot, Garmin 530W or better (the J I'm leaning towards has a 750), and all three have good engine monitors.  The K has altitude select, which is nice- the others just have the up down button.  It's a compromise I guess.  I wish I was rich and powerful like some of you guys and just get a new Ovation...

Altitude select is nice, but the 750 is nicer. It's hard to say how long the 400/500 series GPS units will be supported, so this may save you some money down the line.

[Pritch]

But that 6 cylinder cowling makes it look so darn SEXY.  I can get 160Kts at 10,000 while burning 9.1 gph, but the deciding factor for me would be if it was a GB and not the better LB engine.

Pritch

 

[carusoam]

Let proboscis be the MS word of the day...

If beauty is measured by the length of her nose...

Go Long Body!

There is enough room under the existing cowl for Doc’s IO720...

Or Rocket Engineering’s next turboprop project...

So...

when going M20K...

Know what

• engine block it has... LB vs. GB vs. MB. vs. SB
• does it have a Merlyn pressure controller...
• does it have an intercooler...
• is it a 231, 252,  262, or an Encore

The M20K experienced a lot of attention over the years... it is highly refined...

There isn’t anything wrong with the earlier versions... just know what you are looking at for knowing the pricing strategy...

PP thoughts only, not a plane sales guy yet...

Best regards,

-a-

 

 

[jlunseth]

I live in Minnesota and fly in the midwest, sans mountains, although my mission has included quite a few long distance and over mountain trips. I am really glad I have the 231 even for routine flying around Minnesota.  In the summer in the midwest we have lots of “popcorn” cumulus - big puffy white clouds everywhere.  It is ugly flying through that stuff.  There are two ways to avoid it, under and over.  Under isn’t very good because the ground generated turbulence usually ends about at the cloud bases.  Over is great, nice smooth air and the passengers love it.  Standard conditions call for flying anywhere from 8 to 16,000 with 10-12 being common.  A J can get up there, but not as easily as the 231.  If you have the ability to wait and fly only on bluebird days, yes, 7  works ok, but the great majority of the time around here its pretty uncomfortable and its intermittent IMC.  On top of that, I fly my 231 lean of peak, my fuel flow is generally a hair over 11 gallons.  The engine likes it and the speeds are pretty good.  If I go to 10,000 or 12,000 I will be seeing around 160 kts.  Then there are the days when you need to make a long poke and you have a 75 kt or better tailwind in the high teens - low flight levels.  I have flown J’s they are nice airplanes, but I like what I have and it has nothing to do with having more cylinders than the other guy.

[SantosDumont]

I'm going to start talking some heresy.  Somewhere out there is Mooney serial 670435 that used to be registered as 221ES.  It's got a 6 cylinder TCM IO-360-ES.  It's the sister plane to mine and IMO is between the J and the K.  At 11GAL/hr I can get 160 kts out of it, about 150kts 9GAL/hr LOP at 10k. 

I fly around mountains so I'd go for the K.  

Long range tanks are nice to be able to fill up and do 2-3 trips before needing to refuel again.

[carusoam]

Santos brings up an excellent point...
So many engine choices...

J and K are the basic airframe...

And some Fs have been brought up to J level mods...

Some Js have swapped out their IO360 for a 300hp IO550... they get called a Missile...

Ks didn’t get left behind by the mod world... Find the Rocket for an interesting comparison...

Flying around with 300hp at your fingertips is really cool...

Opt for the transition training when diving in this far...

Best regards,

-a-