380 mile commute. What is the best Mooney for $125,000 purchase price?

[Willie]

3 hours ago, N231BN said:

9 hours ago, Willie said:

Well it sounds like everyone is happy with the Mooney they have. Nobody has said I wish I had bought something else.
 
Can someone with a 231 run my flight plan kcrq to koak and tell me time and burn round trip? The numbers I used for the 231 were not accurate.
 
Thanks!

With the current 9kt tailwind at 10,500 my program says 2:11 and 25 gallons.

Thank you for running this flight plan! That’s weird. I really thought the turbo would crush the normally aspirated in time. Hmm.

[Willie]

1 hour ago, kmyfm20s said:

If you have the ability to fly SWA’s at the last minute and the ability to leave the plane in a hangar/tie down at either end then a J will be the most economical of the 2 choices. In my opinion there is not a FIKI plane with your purchase budget that won’t bite you in the ass in the months after you buy it. Since you are familiar with San Diego, I’m based at KMYF and I have been commuting to the imperial valley by plane for over 15 years. Flights will be scrub 99% of the time because of ice. That said it really has varied from year to year how bad the ice is. I can go 2 or 3 years with very few no go flights but then you will have a bad year when it seems like you can never fly. Most of the time that I can’t fly because of ice I wouldn’t want to fly even if I had a FIKI equipped plane. My recommendation is buy and maintain the best plane you can in your budget even if it means dropping down model. It will make ownership much more enjoyable. BTW I flew my J and fly my S in the mid to high teens more often than Most turbo owners do and the non turbos do just fine. Over a 400 mile trip the difference in trip time is small for planes in the equivalent budget range. 

Thanks for the input. Yes I am flexible and can leave airplane on either end and take the airlines. Totally agree on the ice. I would have to have a plane so far out of the realm of possibility for my budget that I would knowingly fly in ice. 

[larrynimmo]

20 hours ago, geoffb said:

I assume the cost of storage in CA drive the cost to some extent, but operating an IO 360 powered Mooney 100-120 hours per year doesn’t cost me anywhere near $20k.

Get a decent 201.  Fly it.  If you decide you want more capability later, sell it and go turbo.  The 201 will retain value well while not costing much to operate.

My J cost first 100 hours...hanger $3,500...insurance $2,000...fuel $4,500...annual $2,000...tires, brakes, oil changes $1,000...garmin pilot/ifr updates $400...foreflight $200...half of altimeter recert for ifr $150...engine reserve 2,500 (based on 2k life@$25...full factory engine change)

$17k...or $17 an hour for first 100 hours, ...above 100 hours the cost is about $100 an hour.

[Z W]

We have a M20K 262, which means it is a 231 converted to the 252 engine by STC.

It cruises best at 11.5 gallons per hour, regardless of altitude.  With the turbo, altitude is chosen based on winds, clouds, and comfort / turbulence.  I use these numbers for real-world flight planning:

155 KTAS at 5,000 feet

165 KTAS at 9,000 feet

180 KTAS  at 15,000 feet

The plane has the same indicated airspeed all the way up and likes to settle in between 140 and 145 KIAS depending on load and smoothness of the air.

When there's a nice tailwind and oxygen in the tank we'll go high.  When there's a headwind, we climb just until smooth air usually and stay there.  Typical trip is high going east and low going west unless you get lucky.

Having flown both a naturally aspirated C Mooney and now the turbo K, I would not give the turbo up.  It's not about speed or fuel burn, but comfort and options.  Compared to overall cost of ownership the additional money is not that much.

You might keep an eye out for a 262 converted 231.  There are not many of them but they sometimes come up in your price range and are usually a little cheaper than a factory 252.  Most have the long range 105 gallon tanks which you can use to tanker a ridiculous amount of fuel when you're flying solo.

[N231BN]

Thank you for running this flight plan! That’s weird. I really thought the turbo would crush the normally aspirated in time. Hmm.

You can go faster if you want, it just takes more fuel. On a relatively short trip(
That was using my standard cruise of 10gph LOP(65%) which yields 160ktas at 10k. If I run it at 75% ROP(171ktas & 13.3gph) today with a 16kt tailwind it's 2:01 and 27.7 gallons.

[JT]

8 hours ago, Willie said:

I saw that Missile. Looks sweet but reaches TBO in about 3 years of my flying. Was hoping for something further from TBO. There is another Missile on  trade a plane for  $90k but looks like it hasn’t seen Much love lately. I need to read up on those but if it’s the same engine that they use in the Cessna 210 conversions then I know that is a killer upgrade in performance.

There's a lot here on Missiles- maybe Seth will chime in or PM him. To make a very long story short, before Mooney stretched the J/K's into Ovations and Bravos, (Porsche Mooneys were in there too but...) Rocket Engineering converted J's and K's into Missiles (non-turbo) and Rockets (turbo).  The Missile has the same io550 Continental engine that Mooney later put into the Ovation. The Missile is actually faster and has better UL than the Ovation because it doesn't have the stretched fuselage weight penalty. As far as TBO, through the years the TBO on Ovations was increased to 2000hrs (the new ones are 2200), I believe with no change to the engine- others may have more info. This plane has an EDM 800 which is about a 7K investment in engine longevity, so likely that the pilot treated it right. Service ceiling should be the same as an Ovation- 20K. I don't know Jimmy Garrison (GMAX) personally but his reputation is solid gold on MS. 

[Bob - S50]

10 hours ago, Willie said:

Thank you for running this flight plan! That’s weird. I really thought the turbo would crush the normally aspirated in time. Hmm.

Think about it.  Up to about 5500 to 7500', depending on what RPM you use, both the J and K will have about the same cruise speed at a given power setting.  However, the J will have a lower fuel flow because of the higher compression ratio of the engine.  Above that, the J cruise speed will plateau and then slowly drop off.  It plateaus, up to a point, because the indicated is slowly dropping, but the TAS increases with altitude for a given IAS.  The K on the other hand will continue to gain another 2 or 3 knots for each 1000' climbed.  So by 12,000' the K will probably be 10 to 15 knots faster than the J but will be burning, I'm guessing, 1.5 to 2 GPH more.  In the climb the J will probably average 700 fpm to altitude while the K will maintain climb rate of 1100 fpm all the way up to 12,000'.

So the K will get up to cruise speed 5 or 6 minutes sooner than the J.  Since that's only about 30 or 40 knots faster than climb speed, it will only be about 3 or 4 miles ahead of the J when the J levels off.  By the time you subtract climb and descent distance, we are talking about something around 2 hours of cruising.  If the K is 15 knots faster it will have pulled away from the J by another 30 miles.  At top of descent, that puts the K about 35 miles or so ahead of the J.  It will take the J about 13 or 14 minutes to fly that far so that's all the time you save with the K.

But the K will have burned 18 GPH all the way up to cruise altitude and probably about 10.5 GPH at cruise for 2 hours.  The J will have burned an average of something closer to 15 GPH in the climb and 8.5 GPH at cruise.  So the K should burn about 2 or 3 gallons more than the J.  Your trade off is 2 or 3 gallons to save 13 or 14 minutes.

Edited September 13, 2020 by Bob - S50
Changed fuel burn difference due to math error.

[carusoam]

Let’s see...

1) Willie has professional flight experience...

2) Been in a GA family for years...

3) Seems to lack GA ownership experience...

4) willing to spend 120amu on his own GA plane...

 

Tough choices without knowing the finances behind the budget number...

Long Bodies near that number Are going to have some hidden huge expenses coming...   Probably not hidden when both eyes are open... 

Are economics of flight going to be important..?

M20Es are most efficient... for one person...

M20Ms are probably on the other end of the spectrum... for one person flying...

The M is more personal airliner than the older birds...
 

Scaling back expectations is a wise economic idea for first plane economics....

A turbo or two makes great sense for Loooong X-countries...

Go Mooney!

Best regards,

-a-

[Willie]

3 hours ago, larrynimmo said:

My J cost first 100 hours...hanger $3,500...insurance $2,000...fuel $4,500...annual $2,000...tires, brakes, oil changes $1,000...garmin pilot/ifr updates $400...foreflight $200...half of altimeter recert for ifr $150...engine reserve 2,500 (based on 2k life@$25...full factory engine change)

$17k...or $17 an hour for first 100 hours, ...above 100 hours the cost is about $100 an hour.

Thank you very much for your numbers! I really appreciate it.

[Willie]

3 hours ago, Zane Williams said:

We have a M20K 262, which means it is a 231 converted to the 252 engine by STC.

It cruises best at 11.5 gallons per hour, regardless of altitude.  With the turbo, altitude is chosen based on winds, clouds, and comfort / turbulence.  I use these numbers for real-world flight planning:

155 KTAS at 5,000 feet

165 KTAS at 9,000 feet

180 KTAS  at 15,000 feet

The plane has the same indicated airspeed all the way up and likes to settle in between 140 and 145 KIAS depending on load and smoothness of the air.

When there's a nice tailwind and oxygen in the tank we'll go high.  When there's a headwind, we climb just until smooth air usually and stay there.  Typical trip is high going east and low going west unless you get lucky.

Having flown both a naturally aspirated C Mooney and now the turbo K, I would not give the turbo up.  It's not about speed or fuel burn, but comfort and options.  Compared to overall cost of ownership the additional money is not that much.

You might keep an eye out for a 262 converted 231.  There are not many of them but they sometimes come up in your price range and are usually a little cheaper than a factory 252.  Most have the long range 105 gallon tanks which you can use to tanker a ridiculous amount of fuel when you're flying solo.

I see!
what is the difference between what you have and a 231 with an intercooler and a Merlin?

The market seems pretty thin right now. Not a ton of inventory 

[Willie]

2 hours ago, N231BN said:

You can go faster if you want, it just takes more fuel. On a relatively short trip(
That was using my standard cruise of 10gph LOP(65%) which yields 160ktas at 10k. If I run it at 75% ROP(171ktas & 13.3gph) today with a 16kt tailwind it's 2:01 and 27.7 gallons.

Seems pretty darn good still for 13gph. Thanks for this

[Willie]

2 hours ago, JT said:

There's a lot here on Missiles- maybe Seth will chime in or PM him. To make a very long story short, before Mooney stretched the J/K's into Ovations and Bravos, (Porsche Mooneys were in there too but...) Rocket Engineering converted J's and K's into Missiles (non-turbo) and Rockets (turbo).  The Missile has the same io550 Continental engine that Mooney later put into the Ovation. The Missile is actually faster and has better UL than the Ovation because it doesn't have the stretched fuselage weight penalty. As far as TBO, through the years the TBO on Ovations was increased to 2000hrs (the new ones are 2200), I believe with no change to the engine- others may have more info. This plane has an EDM 800 which is about a 7K investment in engine longevity, so likely that the pilot treated it right. Service ceiling should be the same as an Ovation- 20K. I don't know Jimmy Garrison (GMAX) personally but his reputation is solid gold on MS. 

You make terrific Points. You can look at the panel of these planes for sale and know what was important to previous owner. If they have an aftermarket engine monitor that’s a really good sign that they were trying to take care of the engine. Thank you for your response.

[Willie]

50 minutes ago, Bob - S50 said:

Think about it.  Up to about 5500 to 7500', depending on what RPM you use, both the J and K will have about the same cruise speed at a given power setting.  However, the J will have a lower fuel flow because of the higher compression ratio of the engine.  Above that, the J cruise speed will plateau and then slowly drop off.  It plateaus, up to a point, because the indicated is slowly dropping, but the TAS increases with altitude for a given IAS.  The K on the other hand will continue to gain another 2 or 3 knots for each 1000' climbed.  So by 12,000' the K will probably be 10 to 15 knots faster than the J but will be burning, I'm guessing, 1.5 to 2 GPH more.  In the climb the J will probably average 700 fpm to altitude while the K will maintain climb rate of 1100 fpm all the way up to 12,000'.

So the K will get up to cruise speed 5 or 6 minutes sooner than the J.  Since that's only about 30 or 40 knots faster than climb speed, it will only be about 3 or 4 miles ahead of the J when the J levels off.  By the time you subtract climb and descent distance, we are talking about something around 2 hours of cruising.  If the K is 15 knots faster it will have pulled away from the J by another 30 miles.  At top of descent, that puts the K about 35 miles or so ahead of the J.  It will take the J about 13 or 14 minutes to fly that far so that's all the time you save with the K.

But the K will have burned 18 GPH all the way up to cruise altitude and probably about 10.5 GPH at cruise for 2 hours.  The J will have burned an average of something closer to 15 GPH in the climb and 8.5 GPH at cruise.  So the K should burn about 4 or 5 gallons more than the J.  Your trade off is 4 or 5 gallons to save 13 or 14 minutes.

That all sounds very accurate and makes perfect sense for doing trip at 12000 and below.

 

What if I open up to the idea of having a tube in my nose and go higher? 

[Willie]

38 minutes ago, carusoam said:

Let’s see...

1) Willie has professional flight experience...

2) Been in a GA family for years...

3) Seems to lack GA ownership experience...

4) willing to spend 120amu on his own GA plane...

 

Tough choices without knowing the finances behind the budget number...

Long Bodies near that number Are going to have some hidden huge expenses coming...   Probably not hidden when both eyes are open... 

Are economics of flight going to be important..?

M20Es are most efficient... for one person...

M20Ms are probably on the other end of the spectrum... for one person flying...

The M is more personal airliner than the older birds...
 

Scaling back expectations is a wise economic idea for first plane economics....

A turbo or two makes great sense for Loooong X-countries...

Go Mooney!

Best regards,

-a-

I would do a couple really long trips in the first year or two.

[Missile=Awesome]

$20k annual operating for a J.  Heh.  NOPE.

[Willie]

50 minutes ago, carusoam said:

Let’s see...

1) Willie has professional flight experience...

2) Been in a GA family for years...

3) Seems to lack GA ownership experience...

4) willing to spend 120amu on his own GA plane...

 

Tough choices without knowing the finances behind the budget number...

Long Bodies near that number Are going to have some hidden huge expenses coming...   Probably not hidden when both eyes are open... 

Are economics of flight going to be important..?

M20Es are most efficient... for one person...

M20Ms are probably on the other end of the spectrum... for one person flying...

The M is more personal airliner than the older birds...
 

Scaling back expectations is a wise economic idea for first plane economics....

A turbo or two makes great sense for Loooong X-countries...

Go Mooney!

Best regards,

-a-

I can explain my finances a bit.

The purchase is all on me as far as buying outright or financing so that’s where I came up with 125k but my commute is expensed through my employer. I figure if they can pay for my first 75-100 hrs then I will benefit from a lot of my fixed expenses being paid for or at least significantly reduced.

 

Also as far as getting too expensive. I capped it at 125k because it’s probably going to sit outside a lot and I also want to fly in Mexico and even land it on an occasional dirt runway. (Surf spot down in Baja) So it doesn’t need to have perfect paint etc. I do want a good working autopilot but those seem like standard equipment on most Mooney’s.

 

 Thanks!

[Bob - S50]

2 hours ago, Willie said:

That all sounds very accurate and makes perfect sense for doing trip at 12000 and below.

 

What if I open up to the idea of having a tube in my nose and go higher? 

Every model has a trade off distance for both time and fuel burn.

For time.  If I climb 1000', how long will it take me to do that and how much slower will I be going?  If it takes 1 minute and I'm going 30 knots slower I'll be 1/2 mile behind the plane that stayed at the lower altitude.  Can I make up that difference in the descent?  Depends on how smooth the air is and how much bouncing around I'm willing to put up with.  Let's say that yes I can.  Climbing 1000' will gain me about 2 or 3 knots in a K.  If I do that for 2 hours, I'll be 4 to 6 miles ahead at the end of 2 hours which will save me about 2 minutes.  That's about 1 minute/hour of cruise for each 1000' of climb assuming the winds are the same (which they rarely are).  Also, every 1000' I climb will increase the time/distance I spend climbing and descending and reduce the time I spend cruising.  Therefore there will be a diminishing return as I go higher and higher.  A 5 knot less favorable wind would wipe out any benefit of climbing.  On the other hand a 5 knot more favorable wind would add to the advantage.  So bottom line, I would pay more attention to wind direction and speed than planning on higher airspeed to save me time.

For fuel.  Each 1000' of climb cost you about .25 gallons.  You won't make much of that up in the descent because there is a much larger increase in burn rate during the climb than there is a decrease in burn rate during the descent.  How far can I fly on .25 gallons?  About 4 miles.  If my speed increases by 2 knots on the same burn by climbing, I'd need to spend 2 hours cruising to make up the difference.  I've found, that for fuel, the break even point is about 300 NM.  All other factors being equal, much less than 300 miles I want to stay as low as practical.  Much beyond 300 miles, I want to go high.

Edited September 13, 2020 by Bob - S50
grammar

[MikeOH]

12 hours ago, Willie said:

Thanks for recommendation. I won’t rule out older models but I think of this a bit like buying a house. Not necessarily easy or cheap to buy and sell so I may want to plan for the future and get the plane with a bit more space and capability. 

Very wise...getting the right plane the first time!

Just realize the F J and K have the same space. And the F and J are both the same 200HP. Finally, newer Fs may not be much older than some of those Js and Ks!

We're talking nearly 50 year old aircraft....condition and recency of use are more important than calendar age, IMHO.

[donkaye]

2 hours ago, Bob - S50 said:

Every model has a trade off distance for both time and fuel burn.

For time.  If I climb 1000', how long will it take me to do that and how much slower will I be going?  If it takes 1 minute and I'm going 30 knots slower I'll be 1/2 mile behind the plane that stayed at the lower altitude.  Can I make up that difference in the descent?  Depends on how smooth the air is and how much bouncing around I'm willing to put up with.  Let's say that yes I can.  Climbing 1000' will gain me about 2 or 3 knots in a K.  If I do that for 2 hours, I'll be 4 to 6 miles ahead at the end of 2 hours which will save me about 2 minutes.  That's about 1 minute/hour of cruise for each 1000' of climb assuming the winds are the same (which they rarely are).  Also, every 1000' I climb will increase the time/distance I spend climbing and descending and reduce the time I spend cruising.  Therefore there will be a diminishing return as I go higher and higher.  A 5 knot less favorable wind would wipe out any benefit of climbing.  On the other hand a 5 knot more favorable wind would add to the advantage.  So bottom line, I would pay more attention to wind direction and speed that planning on higher airspeed to save me time.

For fuel.  Each 1000' of climb cost you about .25 gallons.  You won't make much of that up in the descent because there is a much larger increase in burn rate during the climb than there is a decrease in burn rate during the descent.  How far can I fly on .25 gallons?  About 4 miles.  If my speed increases by 2 knots on the same burn by climbing, I'd need to spend 2 hours cruising to make up the difference.  I've found, that for fuel, the break even point is about 300 NM.  All other factors being equal, much less than 300 miles I want to stay as low as practical.  Much beyond 300 miles, I want to go high.

Unlike Bob, I don't much care about fuel burn in climb or difference in total flight time going higher or lower.  I do care about passenger comfort, and my experience in GA going cross country many, many times, in general going higher means less turbulence and a better overall trip.  Especially with turbocharging it also means a more efficient flight because as you go higher your IAS goes down and you come down the drag curve.  This becomes substantial as you get into the upper teens. Of course the other added benefit is your TAS goes up approximately 2% per thousand feet, so at, for example 17,000 feet, your TAS is 34% faster than at sea level.

[Willie]

46 minutes ago, donkaye said:

Unlike Bob, I don't much care about fuel burn in climb or difference in total flight time going higher or lower.  I do care about passenger comfort, and my experience in GA going cross country many, many times, in general going higher means less turbulence and a better overall trip.  Especially with turbocharging it also means a more efficient flight because as you go higher your IAS goes down and you come down the drag curve.  This becomes substantial as you get into the upper teens. Of course the other added benefit is your TAS goes up approximately 2% per thousand feet, so at, for example 17,000 feet, your TAS is 34% faster than at sea level.

Don,

What do you think of this plane?

[carusoam]

Willie,

Are you expecting somebody to look this up for you?
 

To give you a professional opinion?

https://www.controller.com/listing/for-sale/195259381/1989-mooney-m20m-bravo-piston-single-aircraft

 

Call Jimmy directly... to get the the best info possible about the plane...

Part of doing your homework...

 

Jimmy likes to do this, because it is part of his homework as well...

He took the first steps for you already... see his notes bellow...

 

 

When you do go Bravo.... Don is THE right guy to get coaching from...

Your probable next steps to be aware of... be aware of the costs of engine with turbo system OH... and R&R...

Go Mooney!

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

Best regards,

 -a-

 

See Jimmy’s notes...

What you need to know: 1) Lowest Priced Bravo on the market, 2) Very Low Total Time, 3) A high time engine that is showing no signs of needing an overhaul. The Bravo engine is de-rated to 270hp (the same TIO-540 base engine that puts out 350hp in some installations), so even at full power, the engine is not taking a lot of abuse, 4) Lots of redundancy for IFR Flight (Vac Pumps, Batteries, Glide Slopes, Attitude Indicators, GPS), 6) 200+ knots -- where are you going to get that speed in a production plane at a price like this? (Answer: Nowhere).

Airframe

Total Time

1,950

Airframe Notes

1950 Hours Total Time Since New.

Engine

Engine Notes

1950 Hours Total Time Since Factory New. 933 Hours since Factory New Cylinders (Bravo ‘Wethead’ Conversion). (Lycoming TIO-540 AF1B, 270 H.P., 2000 Hour TBO). Last Compressions (November 2019): 74 / 66 / 75 / 78 / 72 / 76. We will resample the compressions after it arrives here (if we don't sell it where it sits first).

[Bob - S50]

2 hours ago, donkaye said:

Unlike Bob, I don't much care about fuel burn in climb or difference in total flight time going higher or lower.  I do care about passenger comfort, and my experience in GA going cross country many, many times, in general going higher means less turbulence and a better overall trip.  Especially with turbocharging it also means a more efficient flight because as you go higher your IAS goes down and you come down the drag curve.  This becomes substantial as you get into the upper teens. Of course the other added benefit is your TAS goes up approximately 2% per thousand feet, so at, for example 17,000 feet, your TAS is 34% faster than at sea level.

Don.  I didn't intend to give the impression that I always go for speed.  I was just responding to his question about saving time by going higher.  Just tried to point out that higher is not necessarily faster.  And of course, if you want to go higher for a better ride for the passengers then you have to consider whether or not they like sucking on a hose.  If there are no smooth altitudes, I'll pick the best I can find and then slow down to minimize the size of the bumps.

My priorities, in order, when picking an altitude:

Don't hit the ground.

No ice.

Smooth ride.

Flight time/fuel burn.

My favorite choices are 3500 or 4500 for short flights and 7500 to 10500 for long flights.

[donkaye]

2 minutes ago, Bob - S50 said:

My priorities, in order, when picking an altitude:

Don't hit the ground.

No ice.

Smooth ride.

Flight time/fuel burn.

My favorite choices are 3500 or 4500 for short flights and 7500 to 10500 for long flights.

Sounds good too me.

[donkaye]

1 hour ago, Willie said:

Don,

What do you think of this plane?

 

I have about 15 hours in that plane.  I helped Dave Norinsky bring it back from KGGG when he bought it in 2013.  It was a long day with 10.5 flight hours to Petaluma, California.   Dave traded a J Model for it.  I haven't flown with Dave since 2014 so I don't know anything else about it or why he is selling it.  TT on the airframe doesn't mean much.  I know he had a hangar in Petaluma.  OTOH it's got the original engine that was converted the Bravo 933 hours ago.  When I converted my first engine to the Bravo I flew it to 2295 hours before I swapped it out for a Reman.  I think the reason for the low price is in anticipation for a new engine in the not too distant future.

[Tim Jodice]

On 9/12/2020 at 9:31 AM, Ragsf15e said:

A J will cost about $20k/year to operate 100 hours/year all in.  

I came up with the same when I ran the numbers. 

I think most people don't want to be honest with themselves as to how much it cost to run an airplane. 

I originally projected $195-200 an hour for a J. That is all in paying for it, depreciation, insurance, hangar/tie down, all maintenance, engine/prop reserves (blew the prop reserve idea) and elective upgrades. 

I update the numbers every few months and the actual numbers are trending down. Why? I fly it slower than I thought I would. Maintenance has been great. I have had 1 problem that grounded me(mag failure). These airplanes just run.

December will be my 1 year anniversary with this (FANTASTIC) airplane. Lets see what annual #2 is like. I do mid year work over and above oil changes so i don't snow ball it in to an annual. The engine and landing gear get more attention throughout the year.