Can't decide between 1986 M20J and 1980 M20K

[Wingover]

I was set on the J model but it seems that in Europe it is harder to find the J than the K.  My mission is cross country around Europe and not sure about the need to go above 10,000 feet often so the J made sense.  I now have the option to pick up the K with the LB engine for about 20k less than a J (both about the same condition).  I understand that the K will cost more to operate.

I hear that the 6 cyl runs much quieter especially with the 3 blade prop and the plane has less vibration that a J with 4 cyl and 2 blade prop.  Is that true?

Can't make up my mind on which one....

[Fly Boomer]

8 minutes ago, Wingover said:

I hear that the 6 cyl runs much quieter especially with the 3 blade prop and the plane has less vibration that a J with 4 cyl and 2 blade prop.  Is that true?

We call that Lycoming a "4-banger" for a reason. -- I can't think of any circumstance where the Continental wouldn't be smoother.  That said, if you go for the "J", make sure you have no use for the turbocharger now or in the future.  And, just an opinion, I would not expect the "K" to be significantly more expensive to maintain.

EDIT:  The "K" would be much more valuable with the add-on intercooler and upgraded wastegate.  Possibly the most valuable difference between a 231 and a 252 was the TSIO-360-MB engine.

[tmo]

When flying longer distances around Europe you probably have more reasons to go to FL160 or so than you would in the US. I'll defer to the more experienced ones - @Ibra @Urs_Wildermuth @Sue Bon

So far the best upgrade for my M20K was portable O2 with a demand regulator ;-) and I don't even have the intercooler nor the magic wastegate.

[McMooney]

Europe I"d go K if both are in good shape.    Not critical, but there are a few tall rocks about

[Wingover]

It has the intercooler kit but fixed waste gate. I am not sure about the “rocks” around Europe….seems possible to go over most areas at 10,000 ft but I might be wrong…

Edited October 4, 2023 by Wingover

[T. Peterson]

I don’t take my “K” over 12000, but I’m quite happy. I just like it that power available is always more than power required.

[Red Leader]

The "K" is slower than the "J" by several knots below 8000ft, but above that, it is a real performer. I typically fly my 231 above 10 for any flight over an hour and have been very pleased with the speed of this bird and smoothness of its engine. You mentioned that a "K" would be more expensive to maintain, and you are correct - but only by a little. The extra component that might generate a need for extra maintenance is the turbocharger, and if you take care of your engine, repairs will be few and far between. I also enjoy a low fuel burn (something else to consider when crunching numbers) by my smooth 6-cylinder Continental engine. I cannot speak to the idiosyncrasies of the Lycoming, but I have heard the "K" will likely need to be topped at least once before overhaul and the turbo probably the same. One really positive aspect of owning my plane is that frequently, at altitudes above 13.5, I typically see +175 - 181kts true, burning less than 11 gallons an hour. Let's see a "J" do that.

[DCarlton]

https://books.google.com/books?id=WzZQlhAb1ZcC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

See article page 47.  

[Wingover]

5 hours ago, Red Leader said:

The "K" is slower than the "J" by several knots below 8000ft, but above that, it is a real performer. I typically fly my 231 above 10 for any flight over an hour and have been very pleased with the speed of this bird and smoothness of its engine. You mentioned that a "K" would be more expensive to maintain, and you are correct - but only by a little. The extra component that might generate a need for extra maintenance is the turbocharger, and if you take care of your engine, repairs will be few and far between. I also enjoy a low fuel burn (something else to consider when crunching numbers) by my smooth 6-cylinder Continental engine. I cannot speak to the idiosyncrasies of the Lycoming, but I have heard the "K" will likely need to be topped at least once before overhaul and the turbo probably the same. One really positive aspect of owning my plane is that frequently, at altitudes above 13.5, I typically see +175 - 181kts true, burning less than 11 gallons an hour. Let's see a "J" do that.

I guess by maintenance, I meant the cost of rebuilding the engine.  I hear that the continental will cost $20K more to rebuild but I haven't verified that yet.

3 hours ago, DCarlton said:

https://books.google.com/books?id=WzZQlhAb1ZcC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

See article page 47.  

Thanks for the link.  It is an interesting article and not really helping the decision...

[Sue Bon]

11 hours ago, tmo said:

When flying longer distances around Europe you probably have more reasons to go to FL160 or so than you would in the US. I'll defer to the more experienced ones - @Ibra @Urs_Wildermuth @Sue Bon

So far the best upgrade for my M20K was portable O2 with a demand regulator ;-) and I don't even have the intercooler nor the magic wastegate.

I've flown between Stockholm and Gibraltar at FL80-100, but minimum IFR over the Alps is FL140, I think. Maybe even FL160. Of course, you can slalom through the passes at 9500 feet VFR.

[tmo]

Yeah, but a Carbon Cub is better for that slalom

[MatthiasArnold]

As mentioned by @Sue Bon:

IFR minimum over the Alps is F140 (e.g. over Swiss Alps / Gotthard).
F160 gives you way more options (e.g.  most of Austrian Alps).
So, if your travel plans include flights crossing the Alps (under IFR) the K might provide much more options and flexibility..

Best, Matthias

Approaching the Alps south-bound at F160 last Sunday (position Zürich See, down left).
Had great views including Matterhorn and Mont Blanc (not shown on the image)

[231BB]

My M20K has been a solid and reliable performer with reasonable maintenance expense over 18 years of ownership. I love the flight envelope options afforded by the turbocharger, and I would never buy a NA Mooney after experiencing the benefits of flying in the mid-teens.

[Pinecone]

I wrote an article for Mooney Flyer about reasons a turbo makes sense.

https://themooneyflyer.com/issues/2023-AugTMF.pdf

 

[wombat]

3 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

There are real benefits. 

Cruise at FL210 and take advantage of tail winds to get a ground speed of 280KT.  Do this for 4+  hours and have a single leg of more than 1,000 NM with IFR reserves.

[Airways]

Having flown both (in Europe), I decided to go for a K because I want to punch through the clouds asap.  The J took too long for my liking to do this.

[Ibra]

On 10/5/2023 at 6:21 PM, tmo said:

Yeah, but a Carbon Cub is better for that slalom

J will do that slalom as well, however, if regularly flying IFR in mountains, the K would be nice but lot of tiny places in Switzerland & southern France have short paved runways or grass where 4 cylinders tend to do better than 6 cylinders…

AFAIK, one rarely takeoff IFR with 6kft DA in Europe? unlike US we don’t have steep IFR SID from 9kft airports? so the lack of turbo on takeoff to maintain climb gradient is not that problematic (we are not talking IFR from Denver where K and usual VFR from peaks like Megeve, valley mids in Barcelonette or valley floors like Sion, Lausanne…is very doable in J), then when away from Alps most airways flying can be done in J, slowly but surely: the only reasons why you would climb above 12kft are weather (clouds, winds) or efficiency on say 500nm trip non stop 

Overall, K is better for regular +10kft or +400nm missions in terms of capability and efficiency, the turbo also shines if one is operating above IMC in winter: you can’t beat these with J…for anything else, I personally don’t think there is much differences J or K? even for maintenance the difference is still tiny compared to other variables as  you budget on 1000h-2000h time horizons 

If you get older K models make sure you get upgrades from new models(reducing throttle on every takeoff is not intuitive ) 

Between the two, I would go would for the one with clean airframe and sensible price !

 

 

Edited November 15, 2023 by Ibra

[LANCECASPER]

On 11/14/2023 at 2:42 PM, 1980Mooney said:

 Does anyone have a handle on the operating and maintenance cost differentials?

This has been debated back and forth many times. Over a longer period of time the cost difference in aviation dollar terms between a turbo and non-turbo is almost nothing.

Why? Even if the maintenance cost on a turbo airplane was 15% more, which it isn't, since the turbo is (at least) 15% faster you are putting 15% less hours on the engine/accessories to get to your destination. What value does Vref put on an hour of engine time?

People will point to one anecdotal maintenance event and say how much more it costs to own a turbo-charged airplane. But over a long term (30 years) with all things considered I personally haven't found that to be true. And that's not factoring in whether getting there in less time is worth something to you, or being able to clear build ups or obstacles easier is worth something.

It's worth mentioning that if you decide on a turbo you need to get some specific training from an expert on that airplane. Managing the engine and flying it correctly will help keep maintenance costs where they should be. Any engine can be cooked in short period of time by someone that's wreckless. It can be done quicker by a wreckless person behind a turbo engine. If flown properly you'll get reasonable performance and good longevity. If you were renting out airplanes and letting anyone fly them, with no consequences to them, I wouldn't provide them with turbo airplanes.

All of that being said, people who fly non-turbos will tell you that's the way to go. And people that fly turbos will tell you that's the way to go. After flying turbo Mooneys, I flew a beautiful Ovation (which is not turbo-charged) for a year and then sold it and went back to a turbo. Most people who have flown both don't go back to non-turbo, no matter what part of the country in which they live. Getting over afternoon buildups to cruise in smooth air even in flat land is a huge advantage.

If the OP is already considering both and ends up buying the J, which is still a great airplane, he will think about what the K would have been like every time he is in one of those situations. Usually when I've debated back and forth between buying something I can live with and something I'd rather have, if I go the lesser route I kick myself afterwards. My vote would be to look for a 231 that has the Merlyn and the intercooler.

[EricJ]

Even flying in a lot of high DA and terrain in the SW US, I find myself glad I don't have a turbo more often than wishing I had one.   It's a tradeoff where a lot of personal preference comes in along with the sensitivities to specific mission profiles.   There's no one-size fits all, so it's nice that there are enough variations in Mooney models to give people options.    It is not practical, though, for most people to own multiple Mooneys of different flavors just to best accomodate that day's mood or mission. 

[Pinecone]

3 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

If the OP is already considering both and ends up buying the J, which is still a great airplane, he will think about what the K would have been like every time he is in one of those situations. Usually when I've debated back and forth between buying something I can live with and something I'd rather have, if I go the lesser route I kick myself afterwards. My vote would be to look for a 231 that has the Merlyn and the intercooler.

That is why I started with a 252 Encore converted.

My transition instructor flies an Ovation.  He was impressed with my airplane.  

[GeeBee]

As noted by others, Switzerland, Austria, Bavaria, Southern France, Northern Italy, all have tall rocks. As a matter of fact, twin jet operations over southern Switzerland and Northern Italy have drift down requirements. If your "getting around Europe" is the lowlands or coastal flying or routes, get the J otherwise get the K.

(If you don't believe Italy has talk rocks, fly the SID northbound out of Milan)

[Sue Bon]

7 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

Switzerland, Austria, Bavaria, Southern France, Northern Italy,

Haha! You almost covered my goal for next year. I want to fly around the Alps, including those places plus Croatia and Slovenia   It will take a bit longer than going over them  

[GeeBee]

Love the food in Croatia!

[hubcap]

My first plane was NA. Myrtle is turbocharged. I would not go back to NA. Looking down at bad weather is a good feeling. I believe @LANCECASPER was absolutely on point about the cost difference over the long haul being relatively insignificant. My experience tells me that if it does cost a little more, the benefits are worth it.

However, I wouldn’t suggest anyone run out and buy a turbo without giving it an objective look, because they are not nice to your engine if improperly operated.

[Pinecone]

And free speed.

I can do about 135 KIAS at 63% power.  At 8000 feet, that is 152 KTAS.  At 17,000 feet, that is 176 KTAS.  So 24 knots free speed.  On a 600 mile trip that is about 34 minutes less.  Or about 5 3/4 gallons of fuel  Last year, my average fuel cost for all the times I put 100LL into the plane was $6.33, so a savings of $36.50.  

The question is, how many people go from turbo to NA and are happier?   How many go from NA to turbo and will NOT go back?