'67F vs '97J ...

[hubcap]

19 hours ago, DCarlton said:

I’ve considered a K many times.  Then I’ll see an ad where someone had an overall 400 hours ago and a top overhaul 200 hours after that and it scares the crap out of me.  I know that’s an extreme example but it seems like we hear those stories often.  It’s just too hard to get work done these days with a reasonable turnaround time.  Low maintenance is probably my number one requirement.  

I am almost 400 hours into owning my M20k 231. The engine had a little over 400 hours when I purchased it and it has almost 900 hours on it now. Compressions are great and I have spent almost zero $$ on repairs, other than oil changes and a mag inspection. I did add the TurboPlus intercooler and the Merlyn Black Magic upper deck pressure controller, but other than that, just oil changes.

I have to believe that when people get poor results out of this engine, it has to be the result of poor management. If you talk to @jlunseth he is several hundred hours over TBO on his engine. I spoke with Don Maxwell about the bad reputation of this engine and he told me that if you run it in cruise at 65% or less power, it will make TBO every time.

I enjoy the fact that I can get over the weather and the engine runs smooth lean of peak and I get 160 kts TAS running LOP at a little over 10 GPH and I can get 170+ TAS if I want to go up to 17,000' or higher, which I do on longer trips.

This engine was brought to the market well before there were reliable engine monitoring systems. If you pay just a little attention you have no problem keeping CHT's below 380 degrees even in the climb. When the 231 first came out they were operating with 40" of manifold pressure, but I never get above 36" of MP during take off and I reduce to 33" in the climb. Running high MP will certainly heat up the cylinders if you don't watch what you're doing, but I have no regrets about my K model after almost 400 hours and 4 years of ownership.

 

[DCarlton]

1 hour ago, hubcap said:

I am almost 400 hours into owning my M20k 231. The engine had a little over 400 hours when I purchased it and it has almost 900 hours on it now. Compressions are great and I have spent almost zero $$ on repairs, other than oil changes and a mag inspection. I did add the TurboPlus intercooler and the Merlyn Black Magic upper deck pressure controller, but other than that, just oil changes.

I have to believe that when people get poor results out of this engine, it has to be the result of poor management. If you talk to @jlunseth he is several hundred hours over TBO on his engine. I spoke with Don Maxwell about the bad reputation of this engine and he told me that if you run it in cruise at 65% or less power, it will make TBO every time.

I enjoy the fact that I can get over the weather and the engine runs smooth lean of peak and I get 160 kts TAS running LOP at a little over 10 GPH and I can get 170+ TAS if I want to go up to 17,000' or higher, which I do on longer trips.

This engine was brought to the market well before there were reliable engine monitoring systems. If you pay just a little attention you have no problem keeping CHT's below 380 degrees even in the climb. When the 231 first came out they were operating with 40" of manifold pressure, but I never get above 36" of MP during take off and I reduce to 33" in the climb. Running high MP will certain heat up the cylinders if you don't watch what you're doing, but I have no regrets about my K model after almost 400 hours and 4 years of ownership.

 

Good to hear success stories.  Appreciate the education on the K model.  I'll have to get smarter if I ever contemplate a move in that direction.  

[jlunseth]

19 hours ago, DCarlton said:

I’ve considered a K many times.  Then I’ll see an ad where someone had an overall 400 hours ago and a top overhaul 200 hours after that and it scares the crap out of me.  I know that’s an extreme example but it seems like we hear those stories often.  It’s just too hard to get work done these days with a reasonable turnaround time.  Low maintenance is probably my number one requirement.  

You might be thinking of the issue with the Acclaims a few years ago. The breather was vented into the exhaust, it would coke up, plug the engine, and there was a problem with some of those aircraft needing a top at 400 snew, or at least that was what I was told by my A&P at the time. 

The 231 could certainly be mistreated. The information in the POH is in many respects just dead wrong. The max CHT is 460. In theory, it was ok to operate the engine with the TIT at 1650, the CHTs in the mid 450s, and the fuel flow at peak or even 50 degrees rich of peak. We now know this is the worst way to run an engine. In more recent times, with good engine monitors and good engine management practices, I am now hearing from the A&Ps that many 231 engines make it several hundred hours over TBO. Mine was at 2300 when the aircraft went in to have the engine replaced. The engine was last replaced in 2002. At 2300, it was 500 hours over TBO.

[DCarlton]

10 hours ago, Shadrach said:

If you want to move “up” perhaps an actual comparison of what “up” is. 

Is it faster? How much?

Does it have better climb/altitude performance?

More useful load?

fit/finish and equipment are considerations but not necessarily tied to year of manufacture.

What tangible benefits do you expect? 

 

When I used the term "up", I was actually speaking to dollar value.  Fit and finish do very often drive my admiration and desire for a product.  It's emotional, not practical.  Any M20 satisfieds my mission as long as the plane doesn't spend too much time in the shop.  More useful load would be nice but it's not necessary; 900-1000 lbs is enough.  Better climb performance is always nice but the only time I really wish I had it, is in summer high density altitude conditions.  My F climbs great.  More speed could be nice but 150 kts on 10 gph is a beautiful thing already.  Updating what I have is the practical thing to do.  Treating myself to something newer might be satisfying or it could lead to months of unplanned maintenance.  And for the folks that have suggested a K, yep, it could lead to new experiences.  Flying faster and higher could be fun and something new.  Plenty to think about.  

[Niko182]

F to a J isn't worth it in my opinion. F to a 252 or a Slovation is a different story. The K being a bargain compared to the J only applies to the 231 models as the post 1990 J models cost the same as the post 1990 K models. Electric F and J models are in about the same price category of to own per year, and the 252 and ovation are in a category above the F/J models, price wise. I am however talking about annual expenses, not the initial purchase price.

As an FYI there is a way to get around the California tax if you're able to fly the plane out of the state for more than half the year. 8% of 200k is 16 grand. So you have to ask yourself if you'd rather spend 16k flying around the country or 16k on taxes.

[DCarlton]

58 minutes ago, Niko182 said:

F to a J isn't worth it in my opinion. F to a 252 or a Slovation is a different story. The K being a bargain compared to the J only applies to the 231 models as the post 1990 J models cost the same as the post 1990 K models. Electric F and J models are in about the same price category of to own per year, and the 252 and ovation are in a category above the F/J models, price wise. I am however talking about annual expenses, not the initial purchase price.

As an FYI there is a way to get around the California tax if you're able to fly the plane out of the state for more than half the year. 8% of 200k is 16 grand. So you have to ask yourself if you'd rather spend 16k flying around the country or 16k on taxes.

I’ve investigated the tax rules before and it seemed like the loopholes had been closed.  I’ll take another look.  The thought of pouring $16k down the tax drain is nauseating.  

[Shadrach]

6 hours ago, DCarlton said:

I’ve investigated the tax rules before and it seemed like the loopholes had been closed.  I’ll take another look.  The thought of pouring $16k down the tax drain is nauseating.  

Keep in mind that a turbo bird is just not as easy to use as a device for poking holes in the sky, nor will it have much if anything on your F down low. This past spring I was cleared to take off behind a beautiful 231. I maintained the same climb gradient as he did. He seemed to be getting bigger in my windscreen but I thought  was imagining it. Tower called me within a minute to verify I still had him in sight.  I had closed the gap enough to create an alert on the controllers screen. I later reviewed te ADS-b data and it looked like I was about 7-10kts faster at the same ROC. His XC speeds at 5k were almost identical to mine. Do I really think my stock F is faster than a 231 at low altitude? Not really. My guess is that he is constrained by engine temps in a way that I am not. 

[Red Leader]

On 9/11/2023 at 11:14 PM, Shadrach said:

I later reviewed te ADS-b data and it looked like I was about 7-10kts faster at the same ROC. His XC speeds at 5k were almost identical to mine. Do I really think my stock F is faster than a 231 at low altitude? Not really. My guess is that he is constrained by engine temps in a way that I am not. 

You are correct, the 231 is slower at lower altitudes than the "J". Where the "K" shines is above 12k - none of the older Mooney's can touch it. In spite of the Intercooler and Merlyn wastegate, I still climb and cruise with a careful eye on temps. Plenty of power available to go much faster but not if a pilot cares about the longevity of his engine.

[DCarlton]

3 hours ago, Red Leader said:

You are correct, the 231 is slower at lower altitudes than the "J". Where the "K" shines is above 12k - none of the older Mooney's can touch it. In spite of the Intercooler and Merlyn wastegate, I still climb and cruise with a careful eye on temps. Plenty of power available to go much faster but not if a pilot cares about the longevity of his engine.

Curious.  Without consideration to wind or weather, what’s your optimum cruising altitude ?  Thanks .  

[Pinecone]

On 9/11/2023 at 2:47 PM, KSMooniac said:

Yikes, I had no idea the MT has gotten that expensive!  I bought in 2010 for 10,500 complete and still love it.  FYI, Hartzell has a new composite version of the 2-blade Top Prop but I'm not sure it is ready for purchase yet...all the speed benefits of the metal, but dramatically lighter and smoother.  Hopefully you can find your bulkhead and get down the road a bit futher before spending big money on an upgrade.

Hartzell is working on a 3 blade composite for many Mooneys.  No time frame of what it might be available.

[hubcap]

6 hours ago, DCarlton said:

Curious.  Without consideration to wind or weather, what’s your optimum cruising altitude ?  Thanks .  

Not speaking for @Red Leader but I find 15,000’ - 19,000’ to be optimal for my 231 for fuel/speed combination. 

[Red Leader]

8 hours ago, DCarlton said:

Curious.  Without consideration to wind or weather, what’s your optimum cruising altitude ?  Thanks .  

Cruising altitude depends on distance and owning a plane that can easily climb to the high-20's, winds are always a factor. I rarely, however, climb to the teens for a trip lasting an hour or less. If longer (like to the Mooney Summit) I will fly between 11.5 - 15.5msl, depending on the direction and speed of the prevailing winds at any given altitude. My last trip to Wisconsin was less than five hours and I flew at 16.5. With 20+ktn headwinds, my TAS was around 181 burning 10.5 gal/hr. As the winds shifted while there, (talk about uphill, both ways...) my return flight was similar but only at 15.5 with the same fuel burn. Higher would've been pointless as the winds were already against my direction of travel and even worse above. From engine start to shutdown, my total fuel burned for the 4hr 40min return trip was 48 gallons - measured by filling the tanks upon my return. the 231 is probably the slowest of the turbo-charged Mooney's but it is faster than the non-turbos, more climb-capable and the fuel burn is hard to beat!

[Pinecone]

I am similar.  I fly in the 12,000 - 17,000 range if the trip is more than an hour or so.

I am limited due to flying on Basic Med.  Otherwise I would extend that range upwards.

Altitude is free speed.  The same IAS at 4,000 and 17000 adds about 40 knots TAS.

I see about 175 KTAS at 17,000 on 10.1 GPH.

[A64Pilot]

3 hours ago, Pinecone said:

Hartzell is working on a 3 blade composite for many Mooneys.  No time frame of what it might be available.

I know Joe Brown pretty well and believe I know that prop, it’s a work of art, really quality product.

But WAY $$ more than I can afford, except for that I think it’s an excellent prop most likely.

[Pinecone]

What kind of price range?   The Hartzell people at Mooney Max would not say or did not know.

[A64Pilot]

The really old vs just old really has more to do with the airplane than anything, face it guys a 97 anything is OLD, that was 26 years ago? Yeah I know sure seems like yesterday doesn’t it?

I’ve seen 90’s J models that frankly I wouldn’t have, if you gave it to me I’d immediately put it up for sale, and I’ve seen 80’s models and older that were honestly better than new. My Maule was that way, better than new. It was stripped to the steel tubing, it was bead blasted and powder coated and the airplane built up from there.

That’s the airplane that I shouldn’t have sold. But I wish I hadn’t sold my 71 Westfalia camper either.

[A64Pilot]

13 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

What kind of price range?   The Hartzell people at Mooney Max would not say or did not know.

I think most likely that you can price the 3 blade Hartzell composite for a Cirrus or Maule and find out surely they would be very close, those are for big motors so maybe they will be a little higher? No idea really.

In other words I’m not sure, but my eyes watered when I found out what the one cost for the Maule years ago, I could probably have gotten OEM pricing, but I had a nearly new Scimitar on the Maule, that weighed 12 lbs more than the two blade Mac that was on it and didn’t perform as well. On the M6-235 Maule nothing outperformed the two blade McCauley, and I think it was a whole lot cheaper too.

Looked cooler on the ramp though  

I really don’t think three blades on our size aircraft and power make sense, now that may change if you add 100 HP, I’m talking the 200 ish HP J and I guess the K too.

But they do look cool and that’s not un-important, many spend thousands on cool looking wheels for their autos that do nothing but look cool.

[Fly Boomer]

31 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

That’s the airplane that I shouldn’t have sold. But I wish I hadn’t sold my 71 Westfalia camper either.

I just read they are coming back.

[Pinecone]

Looking the Hartzle experimental 3 blade composite for -360 call engine shows as $25,000 from Van's'

MT is $18,000

[A64Pilot]

19 hours ago, Pinecone said:

Looking the Hartzle experimental 3 blade composite for -360 call engine shows as $25,000 from Van's'

MT is $18,000

I think Hartzell was more than that years ago, maybe they have come down or is it the “Certified” entry in the logbook? I want to think it was closer to 40K? But as I wasn’t really considering one I never really paid attention.

In my opinion the Hartzell is worth more than the MT, sure wrapping a wooden prop with fiberglass is a composite, but I still just can’t get past that it’s a wood prop.

[Shadrach]

10 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

That’s the airplane that I shouldn’t have sold. But I wish I hadn’t sold my 71 Westfalia camper either.

The old Westeys are really cool windows into the past. They’re no longer really useable for their intended purpose. With 50-60hp, I’m not sure they ever were. The memories are often better than the reality.

Decades ago my brother had an eccentric neighbor that was crazy for air cooled 911s. He had at least 15 in various states of disrepair on the property and parts all through his house. (Shockingly he was twice divorced). He put a vintage Porsche flat six into his micro bus. Adding 100hp to the chassis transformed it for the better in a straight line and up hills and made it scary if mishandled in a turn.

[A64Pilot]

The Westie did everything I ever required of it, just more slowly than say a Chevy van. You even learned for a real steep hill to back up it as reverse was a lower gear than first. The Westie was a whole lot heavier than the bus transporter as all of its furniture was laminated 3/4 “ birch plywood and that stuff is strong, but heavy, really overbuilt,  but much higher quality than say particle board which would have been stupid heavy too. It was a small vehicle, smaller than the average US car, but as every inch of it was interior space from bumper to bumper it was HUGE inside. Plus Hell we were kids back then and I wouldn’t mind being reminded of those days, youth is wasted on the young.

I loved the Westie because of the way it drove, you literally sat on the front wheel, with your legs in front of the front tire and nothing between you and whatever you were going to hit except sheet metal, so no way could it pass crash tests today I’m sure. The pedals weren’t on a wall in front of you like a normal car, but came straight up out of the flat floor, which again made driving different, you didn’t have your heels on the floor and push the brake, clutch etc. You sat straight up in the seat like a kitchen chair with your feet on the floor as opposed to sitting on the floor with your feet out in front like a more normal car. The engine was all the way in the back and under the Mattress so really soundproofed, so it was very quiet and no vibrations unlike a Bug where you heard and felt the motor. Driving was really novel it turned under your Butt as opposed to the pivot being way out in front, and you could whip into a parking spot and terrify a passenger as they were sure you were going to hit what was in front of you. I had my sister swear I hit the car in front of me, when I told her that I didn’t she said I saw it move, when I got out and walked between the vehicles she still swore I had hit it.

It’s only disadvantage to me was its lack of airconditioning, which now could easily be fixed with a Honda generator, I even considered it back then but as I was only a PFC / SP4 at the time I couldn’t afford it. There was a large open space in the engine compt, plenty for an Honda generator and of course you could run the AC when parked or camping etc. Installing an AC compressor on the motor would be over stressing an already marginal power wise engine in my opinion.

Mine was a 71, the first year of the dual port engine which added quite a bit of power, but pollution controls in 71 were minor to almost non-existent, of course it was pollution controls that did in the air-cooled engine.

But I do understand what your saying, at the time we had matching 71 bug and Westie, both orange but the Bug had 88 MM jugs, a Holley bug spray carb, the non vacuum distributor and made more power than you would have thought, but later when I was stationed in Germany I drove a newer Bug for awhile and when I did I wondered how in the world did I like this little POS so much, cramped, loud, didn’t stop, or handle worth a Damn and on the Autobahn it was horribly out of its comfort level.

I still would love to have my Westie though, I wouldn’t drive it on long highway trips or anything but just around town etc, get groceries or just to drive around, I used to like cranking open the “Florida” side windows and listen to the wind through the screen as silly as that sounds.

If Airconditioned I’d take it to Sun-N-Fun for a few days, but not without AC. It was much better than a tent, especially say in a Thunderstorm, you had a little sink and an Ice box that could easily be swapped with a dorm fridge if you had a generator, it had at least 1 AC plug, but it was just a regular wall receptacle with the plug mounted outside where you plugged in an extension cord, but another thing to easily connect the generator too, heck with a LifePo4 battery an inverter would be easy too, but I wouldn’t think the engine’s generator could charge a big battery, but maybe it could because Lithium batteries eat alternators for breakfast.

Heck fold a flat screen TV up against the ceiling, lots could be done with todays technology that wasn’t possible back then.

[Red Leader]

Boy, did we REALLY get off topic! The OP was wanting to compare a J to an E and I was making a case for the K. Somehow the conversation morphed into campers. Self-control guys.

[ArtVandelay]

Boy, did we REALLY get off topic! The OP was wanting to compare a J to an E and I was making a case for the K. Somehow the conversation morphed into campers. Self-control guys.

If we had self control we wouldn’t own an airplane.

[A64Pilot]

1 hour ago, Red Leader said:

Boy, did we REALLY get off topic! The OP was wanting to compare a J to an E and I was making a case for the K. Somehow the conversation morphed into campers. Self-control guys.

Threads drift or die, drifting keeps them popping back to the top and keeps them alive and usually they come back or don’t, often they don’t because pretty much everything that’s on topic has been said, carry that just a little further and you have the guy who gets disgusted and posts “I wish you guys would learn to search, this has been asked and answered many times”. I’m surprised we don’t yet have that guy here, sort of personally glad we don’t, yet I do concede they have a point.

The issue he was asking I believe more than anything was old or newer? I was pointing out that even newer isn’t even close to new, but old doesn’t necessarily mean bad and newer doesn’t necessarily mean better. In other words it’s not a general truism, what’s relevant is the condition of the two aircraft, and surprisingly no one has brought up the price difference.

Would many consider a 97 yr model car? unless of course they accept it’s for a throw back to an earlier time and really isn’t usable, however I was saying that with some modern tech, they could regain a lot of functionality. I brought up I wish I had never sold the Westie and Maule, because I could see if he has a very good F, that one day he’s going to be like me with the Maule, wishing he hadn’t sold it.

As a K or any other turbo wasn’t the question, isn’t that drift?, as in has nothing to do with the question? Not beating on you as your making likely a valid point, I assume that’s don’t constrain yourself to a J.

Oh, and I think it was an F with mods that pretty much make it close to a J and not an E