Best Combination of Speed and Efficiency

[GaryP1007]

Hello, as a new member to the site I was hoping to start a discussion on the best combination of speed and performance among Mooney models.  I am interested in acquiring a plane that will allow me and my wife to travel from the Northeast (Boston) to some of our favorite places that are 700 - 1000 miles away.  Currently fly a Piper Dakota that cruises at 135 and burns about 13gph.  I have set a budget maximum of $150K.

[KSMooniac]

Welcome!  You're in the right place for that kind of mission.

To help the debate... what kind of operational budget, do you want to do it non-stop, do you HAVE to travel on a schedule in the winter, would you breathe supplemental oxygen?  Lastly, would you ever have to carry more than you two and some bags?

[GaryP1007]

Scott,  it does not need to be non-stop as I find that we need to stop and stretch every 3 hours or so anyway.  No schedule, these would be at our discretion.  I am thinking we will need oxygen and possibly a FIKI system....although the latter is not a must.  The plane would be for the two of us or occasionally a 3rd.  

[gjkirsch]

I am sure there are going to be a lot of different opinions, but I would look at an 1984 or 1985 231 or a any year 252.  I think all have built in oxygen and will cruise in the teens from 170 to 190 knots on about the same fuel flow that you have now.  Depending on the winds, they will come close to being able to make your trips non stop.

A Bravo or Ovation with a lower time engine is probably above your budget, but you may be able to find a missle or rocket that could work as well.

 

[pjsny78]

Gary,

I bought my J model back in June and was looking at the same things you were and ultimately decided to get my Mooney M20J MSE. I paid close to $160k but you can get one far less cheaper.  I can go from NY-Miami in 6hrs and it’s something I have done a number of times. (It may take me an hour more on the way down due to winds.) I get a TAS of about 165knotts @6k ft. and have had ground speeds in excess of 200knotts. I burn around 13gph rich of peak. I know this in itself is going to cause a lot of debate on rich of peak vs. lean of peak. But I have been told to run ROP by some highly regarded Mooney people. I hope this helps.

[David Mazer]

You can't get FIKI on a Missle or a Rocket because the TKS STC won't cover them.  Inadvertent is available but not FIKI.  I agree that a 252 sounds like the best option. A J would be close but the 252 is a better fit.  If there is ONLY the 2 of you and never more, you might consider an RV 7.  Very economical and a great airplane even if it is a bit sensitive and requires a gentile touch.

[KSMooniac]

FIKI or not is the first question you must answer for yourself, as that will vastly limit your shopping choices and you may not even be able to get a quality FIKI Mooney for $150k.  There isn't a FIKI J (or Missile/Rocket conversions as mentioned) so you are automatically into later model M20K, M20M, and M20R territory.  I don't think you'll find a quality R with FIKI in that price range unless you get extremely lucky with a distress sale.  The same might be said for the M too, but there are some older models that might be in that range.  

If you go for non-FIKI TKS, then you have more options, and no TKS then you have just about any Mooney to pick from...and perhaps leave some money in the bank for the occasional airline trip in the winter if needed.

[GeorgePerry]

Quote: GaryP1007

Hello, as a new member to the site I was hoping to start a discussion on the best combination of speed and performance among Mooney models.  I am interested in acquiring a plane that will allow me and my wife to travel from the Northeast (Boston) to some of our favorite places that are 700 - 1000 miles away.  Currently fly a Piper Dakota that cruises at 135 and burns about 13gph.  I have set a budget maximum of $150K.

[ProprAire]

The only thing I would add to George's comments (that are right on the money, by the way) is that if your travels are going to involve forays into the American west, with its high DAs, you will need a turbo for efficiency and, to some extent, safety.  I flew a J for close to 6 years in the southeast, but the limited climb performance above 10K' made it a poor option for flying out west.  There are many who fly NA aircraft in the west, but a turbo makes a big difference when DA at field elevation is over 8K'.  Just something to consider.

[231Pilot]

The above post is not ProprAire, but me (201Pilot).  Sorry ProprAire, I didn't realize MS had logged me in as you until I posted.  Hope I didn't misrepresent your opinions :-)

[GeorgePerry]

Deleted post.  The computer's doing some wierd stuff???

[Hank]

Quote: GaryP1007

Hello, as a new member to the site I was hoping to start a discussion on the best combination of speed and performance among Mooney models.  I am interested in acquiring a plane that will allow me and my wife to travel from the Northeast (Boston) to some of our favorite places that are 700 - 1000 miles away.  Currently fly a Piper Dakota that cruises at 135 and burns about 13gph.  I have set a budget maximum of $150K.

[GaryP1007]

Saw this online........http://www.trade-a-plane.com/listing?id=1388334

[KSMooniac]

That is a decent candidate, but that engine is a run-out, or very nearly so.  I can't remember if it has an 1800 or 2000 hour TBO, and it is well past the 12 year limit that Lycoming recommends if you're inclined to use that guidance.  Firewall-forward on those is in the neighborhood of $50k.

[GaryP1007]

Thanks for the comments Scott, I had read that as engine overhaul rather than top overhaul.  Good catch!

[201er]

If you're looking for the "Best Combination of Speed and Efficiency" then without a doubt it's an M20J. The 201 is essentially the peak of Mooney aerodynamic engineering with the constraints of a 200HP engine. Like others said, from there onward, it's just about throwing more gas on the fire to make it go faster. That means efficiency goes down but the benefit is more altitude or speed (but at a higher cost). There may definitely be great reasons to own these other Mooneys but maximum efficiency isn't it.

Come to think of it, seems to me like the Mooney 201 to this day remains the most efficient speedy 4 seater flying. Even those Cirruses and other composites rely on bigger engines to achieve similar performance. Anyone know any other 4 seaters that can boast equal speed to hp over 150knots? Perhaps some of the RVs?

[KSMooniac]

I concur about the value of the J, even in the modern market compared to other 200 HP planes.  I think the Diamond DA40 and SR20 come close, but at much greater cost.  Perhaps as they continue to depreciate they will be even closer, though.  I think the RV-10 is supposed to use a 6-cyl Lycoming, but I'm not 100% sure.  It is a good plane.

The biggest question IMO for the original poster is how much of a requirement it is to fly year-round in the NE.  I have no experience in that part of the country and don't know how often it is too icy/cloudy to fly somewhere.  Winter in the plains and south is frequently flyable...to the point that I've rarely had to adjust my schedule more than a day or two for my pleasure trips due to potentially icy Wx.  *IF* flying in the winter regularly on any kind of semi-fixed schedule is a hard requirement, then FIKI becomes mandatory IMO.  One Mooney owner (Mike S) that is active on the email lists and a little bit here on mooneyspace has a FIKI M20R and used it extensively to commute between OH and CT until just recently.  I've enjoyed and learned a lot from his postings about flying in winter Wx across multiple states.  

So, the thought process is <if> FIKI is required <then> find an M20M, M20R, or M20K with FIKI <else> strongly consider an M20J and save a lot of money.  Finding a quality FIKI Mooney at $150k or below may be difficult, however.  In that case, perhaps a very nice J for $120k or less might be a great choice and leave a reserve fund for airline tickets in the winter...if needed.

[Bennett]

Just another set of opinions from someone who has owned Mooneys for about 18 years (a 231 coverted to the 261/262 Trophy varient - think of a 12 volt 252 - and currently a 201 with a number of speed mods). I've also owned a LSA, three Cessnas (a 120, and two 172s) and two Pipers (an Archer and a PA 235, nee Dakota).  My suggestions are a 252, or a 231 with the 261/262 conversion, or a later model 201.  All are fine aircraft.  After 16 years ownership of a 261/262 conversion (great airplane for the money), and flying other aircraft as listed above for a while, I returned to Mooneys by buying a 1983 201 with a LoPresti cowl, Powerflow exhuast system, and more.  The cost was quite resonable, as compared with a 252, and I used part of the difference to strip and paint, new interior, and a state of the art panel.  This makes good sense to me, and while there are a few times I would like a turbo, most of my flying is at alltitudes under 14,000', and the 201 handles this well, especially up to about 11,000'/12,000' .  At altitudes below say 9,000' my 201 is just as fast as my old 261, and burns a lot less fuel.  I stay out of ice - any level of icing, and as far as I am concerned, systems for FIKI are just to get out of icing situations.

[GaryP1007]

Agreed on the icing comment Bennett.  Thanks for your input and adding to the mix.

[GaryP1007]

Is there a simple answer to this question....What are the key differences between the 231 and 252?

[Geoff]

The quick and dirty is the 252 has a better engine/electric installation which results in marginally higher speed, lower pilot workload and potentially reduced operating expense.

[gjkirsch]

The 252 has an improved turbo controller and induction system resulting in full power at a lower MP along with altitude compensation.  There are some speed mods that started in the 1984 231 that also contribute to better performance.  Additionally, 28 volts was standard along with the option for 2 alternators.  Maximum certified altitude for the 231 is 24K feet and the 252 is 28K feet.  When you are considering your budget, plan on spending some money up front to take care of all the squaks in the "no squak" airplane you just bought!  If I were planning trips of 700NM I would want a turbo for the speed potential as well as weather avoidanve options.  I flew from Grand Rapids Mi to Norfolk Va (650+NM) in 2:39 over the Christmas at 15K feet in clear skies.  A 201 will go that high but you won't have much power left.

 

[pjsny78]

I am by no means a Mooney expert but when I started looking at Mooney’s before I decided upon my “J” I noticed something about the entire “K” lineup that I thought was very interesting and chose not to buy that particular plane. When you look at controller and trade a plane I noticed hardly any of the planes made it to about 1k hrs. before needing an overhaul. Even previous owners of “k” models told me the same thing. I’m not sure why that is but the bravos seem to make it to TBO. I know I’m probably going to get some heat for this bit it’s just what I have noticed. Again I am not an expert on this area just an observation.

[gjkirsch]

Before the Bravo(s), I owned a 1980 231 (N111EW)and then an 1985 231 (N5810D).  The first made TBO with the original cylinders, the second needed two jugs along the way.  I really think it is the way you handle the power and monitor temps.  I regreted selling the 1985 model for a long time.  It never seemed to need repairs and was fast at 13 gph.  I wanted TKS and it was a better economic move to buy a plane with it already installed. 

[KSMooniac]

Turbo Mooney mid-life TOH's can very likely be attributed to (a) POH recommendations, ( lack of pilot education, and © lack of adequate engine instrumentation.

Another cause for many TOH (esp. TCM engines) is poor valve-fit during cylinder assembly, causing uneven heat dissipation no matter how the engine is operated.

With modern instrumentation and an educated pilot, most engines should be able to make TBO unless there is some mechanical deficiency like the valve geometry.