Mountain West- M20J or M20K?

[crustymuffin]

Hi everyone,

I'm new to the forum and settled on Mooney ownership, trying to decide between a J or K (252). I have read many other old forum posts on this topic, but I want to hear from you all who have flown both the J and K out in the mountainous areas west of Denver. I'm leaning in the direction of the turbo, but justifying the purchase and maintenance costs is making the decision a bit challenging. Just to be clear, I can definitely afford the K, but a wider dollar cushion is always nice to have. For clarity, I'm only considering the 252 variant of the K because I don't want to worry about the financial or mental workload of those premature high-altitude systems in the 231.

Background: ATP and lifelong involvement in GA to at least some extent. Living in Flagstaff, AZ and based in Salt Lake City for work.

The mission for the airplane would involved recreational cross country flights of 300NM or greater between four times per year and once per month. Using the airplane for commuting to work would be a desirable option, but not essential by any means. On the weekend trips most of the time we would be hauling just two people plus light bags. Occasionally a friend or family may join us. The vast majority of flying we would be doing would also be the most important stuff, flying down to lower elevation fields within the state of Arizona. No matter which type, night flying and approaches with ceilings below 1000 feet are no-go territory.

Long story short; the main mission would be bumming around the "local" area for fun with about 30-40% serious, mountain-topping cross-country flying being a highly desirable option.

My concerns with the J are performance above 15,000 feet and dispatch reliability given weather conditions. I like the systems simplicity and the associated lower burden of cost while enjoying the relative simplicity on fun-flying days.

My concerns with the K are reliability, maintenance cost, the effect complex systems have on "fun factor" when hanging flying around the local area, and whether you all feel those are justified by any increased dispatch reliability.

Thank you all for your responses, and stay safe up there!

 

-Rich

[201Mooniac]

I fly my J all over the country, but I cross the rockies infrequently.  If I were to do it often I would definitely go for the turbo.  I absolutely love my J and its efficiency, utility, and low maintenance/operating costs but the performance at altitude is great up to about 13.5K but after that it is slow going and your climb rate is insufficient IMHO for anything but good weather in the mid teens as you won't outclimb a downdraft.  In the big picture, the reliability and maintenance costs for the turbo are not significantly more (some here will argue it isn't any more), so if you are really interested in flying often in the midteens, go for the turbo.

[Ragsf15e]

If you can still afford a solid, well upgraded turbo model and not a runout one, you’ll be happier there with the turbo.  You’ll also want oxygen which will come with the turbo.  The extra costs will be worth it and likely not terribly significant.

[Ryan ORL]

I don’t have any K time so can’t comment there, but I have flown my J around the Rockies a bit, landed at Leadville, and operated at a few other high altitude airports… it does fine, really.  Obviously I wouldn’t do it midday in the summer at max gross, but the runway and climb performance was plenty adequate for my wife and I and a bunch of bags and maybe 40 gallons onboard for the really high airports like LXV.  That’s a lot of flying miles in a Mooney.  I operated from COS and GJT with full tanks without any issues either.

To me the real question comes down to whether or how often you plan to fly on oxygen.  I personally don’t want to (flying with our dog) and so I flight plan to avoid the need for it.  You can get really anywhere at 12k without going too far out of your way… but if you wanted to go *over* the rocks, obviously you need the turbo.

If I lived out there I would probably have a turbo, but I don’t think I would really *need* the turbo except occasionally.

[Ethan]

I have a Mooney 231 (K) model with the LB1B engine, the Merlyn upper deck pressure controller (waste gate controller) but no intercooler. I live in Portland, Oregon and have flown it about 1300 hours over 9 years. It's the only airplane I have owned and I fly it in high country frequently. I really like the options the turbo gives me. It allows me to fly with my family at the high MEAs out here. It takes some of the stress out of high density altitude departures. It allows me to top weather when I would otherwise have to plow through it and pick up whatever it decides to throw at me (ice, turbulence, hail).  I've had a good experience with the engine and have not had any major problems with it. The last engine we had made it to 2400 hours (1000 hour top). It was running strong when we decided to buy a reman and I regret the decision because it was running smooth as silk and felt great. The engine I now have is a factory reman with about 600 hours on it. I had to refurb a cylinder the last annual because it only made 15/80. That wasn't the biggest deal in the world and wasn't all that costly.

You could probably make a 201 work for you but I suspect you won't regret the 231 or 252. You might want to look hard at 231s because they are cheaper and have better useful loads than 252s. Mine is 1000 pounds. Also, most 231s have the newer LB1B engines (instead of the GB engines) many of the 252 upgrades including the Merlyn waste gate controller and intercoolers. 

[Schllc]

1 hour ago, crustymuffin said:

Hi everyone,

I'm new to the forum and settled on Mooney ownership, trying to decide between a J or K (252). I have read many other old forum posts on this topic, but I want to hear from you all who have flown both the J and K out in the mountainous areas west of Denver. I'm leaning in the direction of the turbo, but justifying the purchase and maintenance costs is making the decision a bit challenging. Just to be clear, I can definitely afford the K, but a wider dollar cushion is always nice to have. For clarity, I'm only considering the 252 variant of the K because I don't want to worry about the financial or mental workload of those premature high-altitude systems in the 231.

Background: ATP and lifelong involvement in GA to at least some extent. Living in Flagstaff, AZ and based in Salt Lake City for work.

The mission for the airplane would involved recreational cross country flights of 300NM or greater between four times per year and once per month. Using the airplane for commuting to work would be a desirable option, but not essential by any means. On the weekend trips most of the time we would be hauling just two people plus light bags. Occasionally a friend or family may join us. The vast majority of flying we would be doing would also be the most important stuff, flying down to lower elevation fields within the state of Arizona. No matter which type, night flying and approaches with ceilings below 1000 feet are no-go territory.

Long story short; the main mission would be bumming around the "local" area for fun with about 30-40% serious, mountain-topping cross-country flying being a highly desirable option.

My concerns with the J are performance above 15,000 feet and dispatch reliability given weather conditions. I like the systems simplicity and the associated lower burden of cost while enjoying the relative simplicity on fun-flying days.

My concerns with the K are reliability, maintenance cost, the effect complex systems have on "fun factor" when hanging flying around the local area, and whether you all feel those are justified by any increased dispatch reliability.

Thank you all for your responses, and stay safe up there!

 

-Rich

Maintenance cost differences are irrelevant. 1000 hours in turbo mooney’s, and I have had one turbocharger to replace over six years of ownership. They use about 5-10% more fuel for the same mission but are generally faster. 
I would not own a plane in the mountains that didn’t have a turbo, unless it was a back country tail dragger.

the purchase price is almost always irrelevant as well, because our planes value remains relatively static, so you will get it back when you sell it, unless you don’t maintain it properly or have damage history. 

[PT20J]

I've flown around the mountainous west a lot in two M20Js I have owned. I've been to Leadville and got my T-shirt. The J does fine in the mountains VFR and there are lots of routes that aren't all that high. But, I'm usually operating well below gross weight. If I were going to regularly load it up, I would consider a turbo. The MEAs are high and IFR routes are not always practical, so I mainly fly VFR in the mountains with flight following.

The turbo is faster because you can fly it higher and get higher TAS. Eastbound, you also get a boost from the prevailing westerly winds aloft. Going west, the same winds can work against you. But this really is only significant on long flights. There are times when a turbo would have gotten me above clouds that blocked lower routes and it will get you above the low level turbulence common in the summer.

But, the turbo doesn't help much with the two biggest problems that have affected some of my trips: icing and large areas of summer thunderstorms in the Midwest. In the mountainous west, the winter freezing levels are low and the icing layer is often thick enough that you have to climb through a lot of icy clouds to get high enough to be out of it. So, if my primary reason for getting a turbo was to improve dispatch reliability, I would also want deicing.

[Marc_B]

I think that many times the idea of do you or don't you need a turbo misses the additionally capability of what a turbo affords you.  For me, the turbo Mooney is a huge value add for capability, safety, and options.

Even when you're not trying to climb over mountains, there are many times it's a huge plus to be able to climb over weather.  Less drag and often better tail winds at altitude.  The upper teens and low flight levels are often much less congested traveling across the country (jets much higher, all the NA folk much lower).  Glide ring is much larger (the higher you get) which affords more opportunity with any in flight issues (other than fire).  Being able to generate full power even at high density altitude airports is a HUGE safety margin for departure, climb out and obstacle clearance.  ODPs in mountainous areas often have climb gradients that many lesser NA aircraft (read not Mooneys) may not be up to.

But in the end it all depends on the flights you'd actually make.  For me the M20K is my sweet spot...and is probably why 6 (4 K's and 2 Bravos) of the other Rocky Mountain Mooney pilots I fly with have turbo Mooneys.  We all love them and actually use the added capability routinely.

[Pinecone]

Article I wrote on page 23 - https://themooneyflyer.com/issues/2023-AugTMF.pdf

I am biased, but I am a HUGE fan of the 252 with the Encore upgrade.  1100 pound useful load.  175 KTAS on 10.1 GPH.  Turbo for high density altitude operations.

[kortopates]

Flying in the mountainous west and being an avid skier at Mammoth is why i fly a 252/Encore for over twenty years. It’s improved my dispatch ability tremendously. Without the turbo I wouldn’t feel comfortable getting near the mountains without mild winds in fair weather. Right there that would preclude winter ski trips!
Although the NA crowd says it can be done, when i think back of all the times i departed from Mammoth with 60+ mph winds over the crest where i climbed up to 17K to cross over from east side to west side. To do this without the turbo I would have had to fly east to Nevada to slowly climb up but wait that doesn’t work either since with the turbulence that NA 200-300 fpm climb rate will go to zero and you’ll want to stay on the ground. Yet with the turbo we’ll be climbing at mostly a 1000 fpm out of the turbulence into smooth air, gaining a couple knots TAS with every 1000’.
Also done many trips where we we flew over areas of icing, in the clear above it. Can’t always have an area to safely climb up and descend but it’s often very possible and climbing at 1000 fpm all the way up helps more than people realize till they have time in a turbo.

The big con is merely that you have to fly in the upper teens to get the benefits of much higher TAS. If being on O2 bothers you, don’t go turbo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Utah20Gflyer]

I’m based out of Salt Lake City and fly a G model. It’s fine for local recreational flying and cross countries in good weather.  It’s very difficult to fly longer cross countries in the winter because of icing concerns.  If you are ok with very limited cross country capability during the cold months then a J model will do fine.   If you want to be able to reliably fly x country in the winter you’ll need a turbo, oxygen and TKS.   So a K or maybe an M or S. 

[Will.iam]

I grew up in my dad’s j model i got a 252 and i live in the flat lands of texas. Why did i get a turbo in a non mountain area? Heat of summer. My dad’s sweet spot was 8k but in the summer we would need 10 to 12k to get out of the heat and bumps but that would take a hit on speed so do you go slower in comfort? The 252 not only gets to 12k much faster than the J i can fly at the faster 8k J power setting but LOP so I’m cleaner running the engine with cooler cht’s. The rest of my family doesn’t like the O2 cannula thing so i only go above 12.5 when I’m flying by myself but i wouldn’t trade it for a J even though i don’t use it as much i like having the option if i do need it. 

[Z W]

Love the turbo.  Would not want to switch to a plane without one at this point.

[FoxMike]

The marginal cost of flying a turbo airplane depends entirely on the pilot/owner.  Turbo airplanes have more parts that need maintenance and overhaul.  Spend some time learning how to operate the engine you will not find the marginal cost of a turbo to be that large.  Realize that Mooney was required to provide adequate cooling for ambient temps standard +40F.  Many summer days in the Rockies the temps exceed that so you need to be cautious.  

I have been operating turbo airplanes in the Denver for more than 40 years and prefer turbo to NA.  A J model works ok around here.  My wingman owned one for many years but once he got into a K model he never looked back.  Good luck.

[ArtVandelay]

What’s the density altitude get to in Flagstaff during summertime afternoons?
If you can adjust your flights around weather and to be in the morning hours a J might work.

[Pinecone]

10 hours ago, Will.iam said:

The rest of my family doesn’t like the O2 cannula thing so i only go above 12.5 when I’m flying by myself but i wouldn’t trade it for a J even though i don’t use it as much i like having the option if i do need it. 

Remember, you only have PROVIDE oxygen for them above 15,000.  They don't have to use it.

I cruise my 252 at 17,000 at 63% power, LOP.  I get about 175 KTAS on 10.1 GPH.

Like others, I could not go to a non-turbo for this type of aircraft.

[crustymuffin]

2 hours ago, ArtVandelay said:

What’s the density altitude get to in Flagstaff during summertime afternoons?
If you can adjust your flights around weather and to be in the morning hours a J might work.

Outside of monsoon season it’s between 10k and 11k in the afternoon, 8k-9k in the morning. Judging by my previous experience, if I stayed within the state a J would be exactly what I need as long as I keep the engine healthy. Traveling afar is the bigger question

[crustymuffin]

14 hours ago, Utah20Gflyer said:

I’m based out of Salt Lake City and fly a G model. It’s fine for local recreational flying and cross countries in good weather.  It’s very difficult to fly longer cross countries in the winter because of icing concerns.  If you are ok with very limited cross country capability during the cold months then a J model will do fine.   If you want to be able to reliably fly x country in the winter you’ll need a turbo, oxygen and TKS.   So a K or maybe an M or S. 

This all makes sense, TKS and O2 are on the table for us, practically required if we spring for the turbo. I’m still in SLC quite a bit and would you like to at least sit in a Mooney, and it’s been a few years. Any chance I could swing by TVY? No worries if it’s too much between strangers on the internet!

[crustymuffin]

I appreciate everyone’s insight, especially from you guys living in/near mountainous terrain and the impact on your ops as both NA and turbo. I’m leaning quite a bit toward turbo. What do you all think the difference in operating cost is? I’ve seen people say “marginal” and “not much” which is subjective, but I also realize quantifying it is difficult. So with that said, what’s your best guess as to the maintenance cost increase over the J? In figuring the rough math with an increase of $15 per hour I could actually get the hourly cost in a given year down to comparable with the J, accounting for the increase in flying the additional capability affords us. If possible, 231 vs 252 is appreciated.

[Will.iam]

2 hours ago, Pinecone said:

Remember, you only have PROVIDE oxygen for them above 15,000.  They don't have to use it.

I cruise my 252 at 17,000 at 63% power, LOP.  I get about 175 KTAS on 10.1 GPH.

Like others, I could not go to a non-turbo for this type of aircraft.

Yea tried that once but she got freaky when she saw me putting my O2 on. 

[EricJ]

16 minutes ago, crustymuffin said:

Outside of monsoon season it’s between 10k and 11k in the afternoon, 8k-9k in the morning. Judging by my previous experience, if I stayed within the state a J would be exactly what I need as long as I keep the engine healthy. Traveling afar is the bigger question

Yup.    People fly NA airplanes out of there all the time in the summer.   You do need to lean for takeoff.    The flight school there flies their 172 for instruction all summer.   There's a prgrammable sign on the taxiway that shows DA.   I flew an NA Arrow II in and out of there once in high DA conditions and it was a non-issue.

[crustymuffin]

5 minutes ago, EricJ said:

Yup.    People fly NA airplanes out of there all the time in the summer.   You do need to lean for takeoff.    The flight school there flies their 172 for instruction all summer.   There's a prgrammable sign on the taxiway that shows DA.   I flew an NA Arrow II in and out of there once in high DA conditions and it was a non-issue.

Yup, I got my private flying those 172s so I know what you mean. It’s not a big deal if you have the appropriate training and awareness of weight and balance. I’m more concerned about taking the airplane over/around mountains into California, Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Colorado.

[Will.iam]

43 minutes ago, crustymuffin said:

I appreciate everyone’s insight, especially from you guys living in/near mountainous terrain and the impact on your ops as both NA and turbo. I’m leaning quite a bit toward turbo. What do you all think the difference in operating cost is? I’ve seen people say “marginal” and “not much” which is subjective, but I also realize quantifying it is difficult. So with that said, what’s your best guess as to the maintenance cost increase over the J? In figuring the rough math with an increase of $15 per hour I could actually get the hourly cost in a given year down to comparable with the J, accounting for the increase in flying the additional capability affords us. If possible, 231 vs 252 is appreciated.

Speed requires power and power is derived from fuel used. If you climb up to 12k you can throttle back in a turbo to J fuel consumption and get close to the same speed (minus weight penalty of having that turbo) or you can fly at the power setting the J can get at 8k but can’t get because of the altitude. I. E. Fuel cost is going to be more because you will be using more at altitude compared to the J you also get there faster but the time saved doesn’t offset the extra cost of the additional fuel used. You also have O2 cost and maintenance. You also have 2 additional cylinders and maintenance that goes with that compared to the J. Variations and luck will be a bigger cost than the differences between a turbo and J model. In other words you could buy a J and have a fuel leak develop or a valve go bad and the cost of fixing that bad luck would take years to offset the operational difference between the turbo and J. If i had to guess the difference is not more than $5k a year which you should at least have set aside for unforeseen maintenance issues that will come up unexpectedly. 

Edited February 5 by Will.iam
Auto checker removed the k

[EricJ]

2 minutes ago, crustymuffin said:

Yup, I got my private flying those 172s so I know what you mean. It’s not a big deal if you have the appropriate training and awareness of weight and balance. I’m more concerned about taking the airplane over/around mountains into California, Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Colorado.

Like many have said if it's an occasional thing it's not a big deal in a J.   I used to fly mine back and forth from AZ to SoDak a lot, and did a lot of mountain crossings in various places.  As you know in the southwest if you fly much cross country you'll be dealing with high terrain somewhere.  I've only needed the O2 once.   One time last summer I kind of wished I had a turbo, but it was mostly because of poor planning on my part.

However, for people who have to make regular frequent trips through areas like that, a turbo might be a good idea.

[Schllc]

5 hours ago, Will.iam said:

Speed requires power and power is derived from fuel used. If you climb up to 12k you can throttle back in a turbo to J fuel consumption and get close to the same speed (minus weight penalty of having that turbo) or you can fly at the power setting the J can get at 8k but can’t get because of the altitude. I. E. Fuel cost is going to be more because you will be using more at altitude compared to the J you also get there faster but the time saved doesn’t offset the extra cost of the additional fuel used. You also have O2 cost and maintenance. You also have 2 additional cylinders and maintenance that goes with that compared to the J. Variations and luck will be a bigger cost than the differences between a turbo and J model. In other words you could buy a J and have a fuel leak develop or a valve go bad and the cost of fixing that bad luck would take years to offset the operational difference between the turbo and J. If i had to guess the difference is not more than $5k a year which you should at least have set aside for unforeseen maintenance issues that will come up unexpectedly. 

I agree with everything here.  $5k annual average difference would be including fuel and maintenance.  I have had an ovation and acclaim, and have flown the exact same mission with them for almost 8 years.  50-58 gallons of gas (depending on conditions) in the ovation and 55-63 gallons in the acclaim, but i get there almost an hour quicker.  this is where it gets tricky because if  you fly a 4 hour mission 20 times a year in the ovation, you are burning say 50 gallons per trip and putting 80 hours on the plane.  But in the acclaim you are burning 58 gallons per trip but only putting 60 hours on the plane.  Those extra 20 hours comes back to you in savings at some point, which is why I say the cost difference is irrelevant.  

I also agree with those who say you don't "need" a turbo, but having one gives you options, and the options a turbo provides are pretty nice anywhere, especially where altitude is needed.