Any opinions on this M20K 231 (N1167N)?

[ZuluZulu]

5 hours ago, oisiaa said:

It's tough for me. I come from a style of flying where I can fly at FL410 at 500KTAS without paying for the gas or maintenance so of course I want it all. It's difficult to decided what I want out of an airplane when my primary mission is cross country. 

I really liked the 109 gallon tanks on the M20K this thread is about because I have no issues with 8 hour legs and was fantasizing about sky hooking it at FL230 and going from the Pacific to Atlantic non-stop with a modest tailwind. 

I think this thread is kinda giving you a reality check, both on what sort of plane to look for as your first purchase, and how you can realistically expect to operate it.  Regularly flying a single engine turbo piston in the 20s?  Probably not going to happen, this is a different kind of flying than you're used to.  And your main plan for that K model seemed to be avionics upgrades.  That's backwards, you first need to find out if you even have a good airframe and good engine before sinking money into marginal upgrades.  A $50k panel does you no good yoked to a $0 engine.

With that said, you seem very open to learn so I think you're going to figure all this out.  I might suggest a C, E, or F model first, using that to get used to ownership and learning how to maintain and operate your own plane, taking note of how it fits your mission (or not), and then use that experience to figure out what you really need and want, and go get it.  Maybe you'll really need that turbo, maybe you won't.  Maybe you'll realize what you really want is a pressurized single or twin to more easily access the flight levels, or maybe you'll end up with a lovely J instead.  I know some will tell you to buy the most plane you can afford but in your case, you already know a lot about a certain kind of flying, so I think a starter plane might make sense for you as a training environment, and the lower purchase price will help lower your risk a bit.  But keep in mind: if you go this route, be very judicious about upgrading a starter plane, because you won't get all the money you spent back when you sell.  For a starter plane like this, prioritize one that is regularly flying, and fly the heck out of it.  Do NOT make the mistake of upgrading avionics, paint, or interior right away, which will only lead to extended downtime and not flying.  This is a test run for a new lifestyle, so get a plane that flies regularly, do the same, and sell it once you've identified whatever Step 2 is going to be.

Just one man's opinion, YMMV.

[Tx_Aggie]

I was in a similar boat about 3 years ago… J or K is what I narrowed down to. The advice is sound on checking flightaware for what realworld flights look like on the different models. As many will tout the high altitude benefits of that turbo but check their tail numbers to see what altitudes they’ve  flown at and almost none are in the altitudes they talk so highly of! 
 

I ended up finding a 1980 M20J model that had just been overhauled and the guy just got married and bought a house. Aka one of these items had to go as a result. I wanted a K but ultimately went with the J just so I could see if I could afford airplane ownership with a simpler setup. The nice thing about the M20J is that it strikes a perfect balance between reasonable ownership/maintenance cost and competitive speed. It really is the sweet spot of the brand. 155-160 ktas on 9-11 gph are real numbers, oat depending. This is only a 15% speed delta to the true airspeed of the Ovation at about 50% of the acquisition cost. Fortunately or unfortunately once you’re in on a J it’s hard to buy more performance for an equitable value, and for that I am  becoming more content. Im usually only about 10-15 minutes behind the io-550 crowd and I know my fuel bill is lighter. Additionally these M20Js will catch any tailwind available I frequently see 10-15 kts tailwinds in the 8-10k altitudes and according to the data the K models tend to file for the same speeds I do there too. 
 

initially I was really drawn to the K but I’m glad I went this route with the J. I’ll be keeping it for a while. 

[Fly Boomer]

11 hours ago, oisiaa said:

Fascinating. I saw only one turbo Mooney above oxygen levels. 

Check all the other types -- GA pilots mostly just go to breakfast or drive around the pattern.  Regardless of type, very few are on serious cross-country missions.  I suspect it's likely that the ones who are on serious cross-country missions are turbocharged with ice protection.

[Pinecone]

Sounds like you need a 252 converted to Encore with Monroy tanks.  

The Encore conversion adds 230 pounds useful load.  Monroy tanks bring fuel up to 104 gallons (I can actually squeeze in 110).  

At 17,000 (my limit due to Basic Med), 175 KTAS on 10.1 GPH.  I did Denver to NE MD in 7 hours.

Not in a Mooney, but best I did was FL390 at 540 KTAS.  But 300 feet at 300 KIAS was more fun.

[DCarlton]

12 hours ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

The bottom line is that piston-powered, single pilot, non-pressurized and air conditioned GA will beat the shit out of you.  I’ve been at it for over 30 years and 10 hours in a single day is the most I’ve managed.  Five hours is plenty for most folks.  One tank full in a Mooney will get me most places I need to go, though. And that can’t be said by a lot of the competing brands.  

Yep. I flew from UOX to CRQ in one day once in my Mooney just to see if I could do it.  It was a sunrise to sunset trip and the ride was calm that day.  Will probably never do it again.  

[JimB]

Indianapolis Executive - Baxley GA - Fort Pierce, FL - North Eleuthera in my F model all in the same day....it was a very long day even with the stops. 

[CChris]

When bringing my C home from South NJ it took me 8.5 hours. I want to believe that I have good endurance, but this trip in a single day was really tough and I can honestly say I was not at my prime physically and mentally when I finally arrived. IMHO such long trips are detrimental to safety, especially when managing complex weather, navigation, and procedures.

[EricJ]

My very first trip in my airplane was bringing it home to Phoenix (KDVT) from Longview, TX (KGGG).   After five hours of bumpy headwinds coming across west Texas I was very, very ready to be on the ground for a while.   Took on fuel and food at KDNA (just west of El Paso) and the rest of the trip was pretty nice.

I've not done a leg that long in it since, though.   I think I've done a couple of four-hour legs, but that's stretching it for me.   I find it much more enjoyable to keep legs to three hours or so.   You can get a long ways on a couple of three-and-a-half hour legs.   I've not yet had to go farther in a day.

[1980Mooney]

14 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

And when you fly back from Atlantic to the Pacific you will generally be flying down low with all the "non-turbos" due to headwinds.  You might go a little faster but at the cost of more fuel burn rate.

Tomorrow go to FlightAware and look at where pilots fly in the real world - not what is said here.  You find a lot of turbo owners stay below 12.  Passengers tend to not like O2 cannulas and hate masks..  

If you want to find at what altitudes turbo Mooney's fly in the real world Just click here

http://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/M20T

For non turbo Mooney's click here

http://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/M20P

For Cirrus SR22 click here

http://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/SR22

For Cirrus SR22T click here

https://www.flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/S22T

For Bonanza B36TC click here

https://www.flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/BT36

For Turbo Centurions click here

https://www.flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/T210

Go here for all the other types

https://www.flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/

 

14 hours ago, oisiaa said:

Fascinating. I saw only one turbo Mooney above oxygen levels. 

Turbo fun facts - right now, mid-day, weekday - here are the altitudes that some "Turbo owners" are flying their planes in cruise  flights per FlightAware

• Turbo Centurions
  • One (1) at 2K
  • One (1) at 3K
  • One (1) at 4.5K
  • One (1) at 6K (Westbound - planned 161 kts but flying 139 kts)
  • One (10 at 7K
  • Four (4) at 8K
  • Two (2) at 8.5K
  • Two (2) at 9K
  • One (1) at 10K
  • One (1) at 10.5K
  • One (1) at 11.5K-13.5K
  • One (1) at 15.5K
• Bonanza 36TC
  • One (1) at 6K
  • Two (2) at 9.5K
  • One (1) at 10.5K
  • On (1) at 11.5K
  • One (1) at 12K (Westbound - planned 10K and 175 kts but flying 155 kts)
  • One (1) at 13.5K

[tmo]

OP, perhaps you should just look around for both J's and K's, and buy the one that ticks all the boxes that need to be ticked...

Kind of paraphrasing Woody Allen, I guess...

[DCarlton]

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

My very first trip in my airplane was bringing it home to Phoenix (KDVT) from Longview, TX (KGGG).   After five hours of bumpy headwinds coming across west Texas I was very, very ready to be on the ground for a while.   Took on fuel and food at KDNA (just west of El Paso) and the rest of the trip was pretty nice.

I've not done a leg that long in it since, though.   I think I've done a couple of four-hour legs, but that's stretching it for me.   I find it much more enjoyable to keep legs to three hours or so.   You can get a long ways on a couple of three-and-a-half hour legs.   I've not yet had to go farther in a day.

I’ve flown a 4.5 hr leg once in 20 years.  I’m down to 2.5 to 3 now max.  Two 3 hr hops in a day is enough.  Or maybe a third hop if you keep them a little shorter and the weather is pleasant and… you’re by yourself and there’s plenty of wiggle room in the cabin.  Mooney endurance is exceptional but I’m thinking about buying the 54 gal bladder STC now if I can’t get my tanks sealed early next year.  I really don’t need 6 hrs of fuel.  

[1980Mooney]

15 hours ago, oisiaa said:

Fascinating. I saw only one turbo Mooney above oxygen levels. 

More turbo fun facts - right now, mid-day, weekday - Flightaware shows sixty (66) Cirrus SR22T flying right now - way too many to detail but ADSBExchange allows you to filter the planes by type and altitude.  It shows 

• There are only three (3) above 15K - One at 19K, one at 18K and one at 17K
• There are only three (3) between 12K and 15K - two at 12.5K and one at 15K
• Thirteen (13) are between 10K and 12K
• Six (6) are between 8K and 10K
• Sixteen (16) are between 5K and 8K
• Twenty five (25) are below 5K

 

 

[DCarlton]

9 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

More turbo fun facts - right now, mid-day, weekday - Flightaware shows sixty (66) Cirrus SR22T flying right now - way too many to detail but ADSBExchange allows you to filter the planes by type and altitude.  It shows 

• There are only three (3) above 15K - One at 19K, one at 18K and one at 17K
• There are only three (3) between 12K and 15K - two at 12.5K and one at 15K
• Thirteen (13) are between 10K and 12K
• Six (6) are between 8K and 10K
• Sixteen (16) are between 5K and 8K
• Twenty five (25) are below 5K

 

 

Would be interesting if you could somehow filter out the climbers and descenders and snag the cruisers.  Or I guess just toss out the ones below 8k for comparison .  Need a statistician.  

[1980Mooney]

3 minutes ago, DCarlton said:

Would be interesting if you could somehow filter out the climbers and descenders and snag the cruisers.  Or I guess just toss out the ones below 8k for comparison .  Need a statistician.  

Those are in cruise.  It doesn't take much to click and scan the tracks on ADSBExchange.

Here is a Cirrus Company owned plane SR22T - that just flew out of Duluth (home of Cirrus) - it climbed to 25K, then made a U-turn and returned to Duluth

https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/N72DF

 

[1980Mooney]

1 minute ago, 1980Mooney said:

Those are in cruise.  It doesn't take much to click and scan the tracks on ADSBExchange.

Here is a Cirrus Company owned plane SR22T - that just flew out of Duluth (home of Cirrus) - it climbed to 25K, then made a U-turn and returned to Duluth

https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/N72DF

It was descending at 3,000 FPM and hit 272 kts ground speed in the descent while still around 20K ft.

[1980Mooney]

[tmo]

Pull early, pull often?

[Fritz1]

maybe more of a philosophical issue, the best airplanes I think are the ones that are paid for in cash, a good airplane is a hard asset that can be turned in to cash again quickly if things go to hell in a hand basket and save the pilot from hitting the skids so he can fly another day, ask me how I know

[wombat]

Now that I've got a plane with a turbo, how would I stack up on your list of "is a turbo necessary" ADS-B returns?

My most common flight is about 100 NM over the Cascades, and typically cruise at 12,000 (or 12,500 if VFR) Westbound and 13,000 (13,500 if VFR) Eastbound.

As far as choosing an altitude for other flights, I choose based on three factors:

1. How much headwind or tailwind do I have?
2. Will I be in turbulence or IMC? (Prefer no turbulence or IMC)
3. Is the temperature at that altitude comfortable?

If the headwinds increase significantly at altitude I'll often fly lower.   If we assume that wind direction to course angle is random, you'll have headwinds (defined as a ground speed lower than true air speed) more than half the time.  The percentage changes based the relative speeds of the wind and aircraft.

I suppose I could make a wind gradient, speed and direction chart that tells me how advantageous or disadvantageous climbing higher is... But Foreflight already does that.

[1980Mooney]

There are thirteen (13) Turbo Mooneys of all flavors in the air in cruise right now per FlightAware:

• One (1) at 6.5K
• Two (2) at 7.5K
• Three (3) at 8K
• One (1) at 9K
• Two (2) at 10K - (One is a 2016 Acclaim (N242TN) that filed and planned 204 kts but is only doing 169 kts for most of the flight)
• One (1) at 13.5K
• Two (2) at 16K - (One that was at 16K half the flight and 10K the other half)
• One (1) at 19K

So - not that many Mooneys that fly high. - less than a handful that require oxygen.  

[CChris]

I am loving this thread and how it is evolving. Thank you to all who looked for and shared the stats

[1980Mooney]

16 hours ago, ZuluZulu said:

I think this thread is kinda giving you a reality check, both on what sort of plane to look for as your first purchase, and how you can realistically expect to operate it.  Regularly flying a single engine turbo piston in the 20s?  Probably not going to happen, this is a different kind of flying than you're used to.  And your main plan for that K model seemed to be avionics upgrades.  That's backwards, you first need to find out if you even have a good airframe and good engine before sinking money into marginal upgrades.  A $50k panel does you no good yoked to a $0 engine.

With that said, you seem very open to learn so I think you're going to figure all this out.  I might suggest a C, E, or F model first, using that to get used to ownership and learning how to maintain and operate your own plane, taking note of how it fits your mission (or not), and then use that experience to figure out what you really need and want, and go get it.  Maybe you'll really need that turbo, maybe you won't.  Maybe you'll realize what you really want is a pressurized single or twin to more easily access the flight levels, or maybe you'll end up with a lovely J instead.  I know some will tell you to buy the most plane you can afford but in your case, you already know a lot about a certain kind of flying, so I think a starter plane might make sense for you as a training environment, and the lower purchase price will help lower your risk a bit.  But keep in mind: if you go this route, be very judicious about upgrading a starter plane, because you won't get all the money you spent back when you sell.  For a starter plane like this, prioritize one that is regularly flying, and fly the heck out of it.  Do NOT make the mistake of upgrading avionics, paint, or interior right away, which will only lead to extended downtime and not flying.  This is a test run for a new lifestyle, so get a plane that flies regularly, do the same, and sell it once you've identified whatever Step 2 is going to be.

Just one man's opinion, YMMV.

 

On 10/22/2023 at 4:47 PM, oisiaa said:

I'm looking into J models now. A J is basically a K with the Lycoming IO-360, right? Any other major differences? 

Any good resources on performance differences between the J/K? 

Since you are new to General Aviation and looking, here is another current thread that is a cautionary tale on buying a plane that has been inactive for a considerable time.  This new owner bought an Acclaim a month ago.  The cylinders were borescoped in the prebuy (PPI) and given the green light.  After only 40 hours of flying later he is posting on MooneySpace trying to figure out why he is getting high Carbon Monoxide in the cabin consistently.  It turns out the bottom plugs are basically dead from oil fouling - pulled, cleaned and they are fouled again after a flight.  Now he will be doing a top end overhaul on a TSIO-550.

 

[ttflyer]

On 10/22/2023 at 2:06 PM, RobertGary1 said:

Engines somewhat. Airframes don’t care. 

Sure they do!  Airplanes do not like to sit.  Everything breaks when they do. Batteries...  Lubrication... Avionics.  It all atrophies when not in regular use.  And sitting airplanes rarely sit in hangars, they usually sit outside and rot. 

Honestly I always consider our engine to be 10 seconds away from needing an overhaul (for financial planning purposes).  What I would like to avoid is having the damn airplane break every time I fly it. The best way I've found is regular flying...

[wombat]

3 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

There are thirteen (13) Turbo Mooneys of all flavors in the air in cruise right now per FlightAware:

• One (1) at 6.5K
• Two (2) at 7.5K
• Three (3) at 8K
• One (1) at 9K
• Two (2) at 10K - (One is a 2016 Acclaim (N242TN) that filed and planned 204 kts but is only doing 169 kts for most of the flight)
• One (1) at 13.5K
• Two (2) at 16K - (One that was at 16K half the flight and 10K the other half)
• One (1) at 19K

So - not that many Mooneys that fly high. - less than a handful that require oxygen.  

Direct headwinds at 35 KT @10,000 MSL according to Skyvector's wins aloft layer.  So I'd say N242TN is achieving their filed TAS.

[hubcap]

17 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

There are thirteen (13) Turbo Mooneys of all flavors in the air in cruise right now per FlightAware:

• One (1) at 6.5K
• Two (2) at 7.5K
• Three (3) at 8K
• One (1) at 9K
• Two (2) at 10K - (One is a 2016 Acclaim (N242TN) that filed and planned 204 kts but is only doing 169 kts for most of the flight)
• One (1) at 13.5K
• Two (2) at 16K - (One that was at 16K half the flight and 10K the other half)
• One (1) at 19K

So - not that many Mooneys that fly high. - less than a handful that require oxygen.  

I am puzzled by the way many non-turbo guys seem to be fixated on turbo airplanes, and argue they aren’t needed, or they don’t use it. Many folks criticize turbos because they are so expensive to maintain, or they don’t NEED a turbo. 
 

I have a turbo, and while I don’t fly in the flight levels on every trip, I use the benefits of turbocharging when it makes sense. Just like when I don’t use my hammer every time I open my toolbox….I am still glad I have a hammer in my toolbox.

Just like the guys who have anti-icing equipment don’t use that on every trip…but I bet they are sure glad to have it when they need it. 
 

I am not going to criticize anyone’s choice of airplane. As long as they are the one making the payment it’s none of my business. You want to fly a NA airplane…go for it. I will happily enjoy the benefits of my turbo when it makes sense.