2024: Thoughts on the sweet spot in the M20 model range?

[KSMooniac]

I've still got a vacuum DG with a heading bug in my J, in case that gives you any comfort.    It flies to the same places as a G3X.

[BlueSky247]

52 minutes ago, KSMooniac said:

I've still got a vacuum DG with a heading bug in my J, in case that gives you any comfort.    It flies to the same places as a G3X.

Lol! That’s awesome. One of the trainers I fly has an early version of glass panel and it’s got a noticeable delay on the readout. Drives me crazy. Long live analog!

[Pinecone]

It is not just what is POSSIBLE.

I learned analog without an HSI.  I thought I was in heaven when I had an HSI and DME.  I have flown ADF approaches.

But it is SO MUCH nicer with good glass panel.  Heck, it is so much nicer with any glass panel you can buy today.

[Tx_Aggie]

On 5/23/2024 at 3:59 PM, KSMooniac said:

Any airworthy Mooney is better than no Mooney!  Beyond that, there is a Mooney for nearly every budget and 85% mission if you're rational and honest with yourself.  Buy the absolute best one you can find in your budget range, but be wary that a higher purchase price might not mean it is a truly better airplane than another.

I originally started shopping for a modified/updated E or F due to my acquisition budget preferences, but ended up in an early J ('77) and couldn't be happier.  I got a bigger loan, and that might be my only regret in that I didn't make an action plan long before and save up cash, but that is water under the bridge now and I have many more years of great life experiences with a Mooney vs. being more responsible and saving cash for longer.

At the time, I got a modernized panel and new interior, but high-time engine and original paint (2007 purchase).  Over the last 17 years, I've done a lot to modernize the airframe and make it like a newer J because it is also my hobby.  I truly believe the J is the sweet spot for an owner pilot that wants to travel... it is fast enough for real travel, and simple enough that dispatch reliability is outstanding and the operating costs are lower than just about anything else.  A real milestone airplane, and the market reflects it.  My list of superior features is just about exactly what Ross listed above, too, except for instrument panel access!  That is terrible on a J. 

I sometimes ponder what I would be flying today if I had purchased a C, E, or F 17 years ago and it is hard for me to say... C or E, I would have likely replaced to get more fuel capacity and more backseat/cargo room.  If I got an F, I suspect I would have transformed it into a near-J much like John Breda has (search the site).  Maybe I would have jumped up to a K after a few years, or maybe an R/S by now.  Hard to say.  All I know is I still love my J, and am still improving her, and don't think twice about any of the costs to own or fly a particular trip, anywhere in the country, like I might if I had something more complex/capable/expensive.  To get a noticeable improvement over a J in terms of meaningful trip time reduction or increased load-carrying would cost a LOT more to purchase and run, so I continue to be happy.  I still have a TN system to add one of these years, and then I'll be ecstatic, and have my own K-killer. 

What turbo normalized system do you have laying around?

[KSMooniac]

What turbo normalized system do you have laying around?

M20 Turbos from my salvage plane. NLA in the new market of course...

Sent from my motorola edge plus 2023 using Tapatalk

[Tx_Aggie]

It should be noted while we’re all talking about how fast our birds are. If you want to get a sense of reality in speeds, look up c/e/f/J etc tail numbers on flightaware. Everyone will tell you their c model goes as fast as a J but flightaware will tell you truthfully what people plan for and what they actually get!

[Tx_Aggie]

2 minutes ago, KSMooniac said:

M20 Turbos from my salvage plane. NLA in the new market of course...

Sent from my motorola edge plus 2023 using Tapatalk
 

NLA?

[KSMooniac]

NLA?

No longer available

Sent from my motorola edge plus 2023 using Tapatalk

[Falcon Man]

Is the posted airspeed on FlightAware the true or ground airspeed?

[Shadrach]

31 minutes ago, Falcon Man said:

Is the posted airspeed on FlightAware the true or ground airspeed?

Good question. I think flight aware posts filed TAS for scheduled flights and then avg GS for completed flights and real time GS for flights in progress.

[teethdoc]

I think the Js are one of the best aircraft ever made.

[Danb]

Act who cares how fast other planes are, we all have fast planes. I just drove 1500 miles, that’s slow.im envious of all the Mooney owners on our forum..

[Jetpilot86]

1000 miles, 5:06 in the air a few days ago in my Bravo. 

[Crawfish]

I'd like to second the K models! My M20K is a 79 231, I've owned it for 8 months; had one annual already, and two STC's added (Gami's and engine monitor.) 

 

I climb out at 115KIAS, at max gross it climbs at 700FPM until MP starts to drop in the low teens. I don't have Merlyn or Intercooler otherwise I would imagine you'd get several thousand more feet of 700FPM. On my way up to 16k I just lowered the nose to 500FPM once MP started to drop (somewhere between 12-14k each time) and made it the rest of the way up without issue. 

My 231 runs great LOP, I've learned in the summer time I need to have cowl flaps in trail but expect 150-165 KTS at cruise altitudes (11,000'-16,000') on 10GPH, In the winter I was able to do the same with cowl flaps closed giving me an extra 5ish knots. (This is all based off the airspeed indicator so throw in some room for error.) 

Range wise, I've done several 3 and 4 hour flights now. A 5 hour flight is what I would be comfortable with Std range Tanks! Easy math here Cruise and decent of 4.7 hours at 160KTAS= 752nm plus .3 hours of climbing at 115Knots = 35nm grand total being 786 nm of still air range. 

And all that in a package you could buy in the 130K-160K range, Seems like a true steal to me. (Thinking of 231's here. 252's, and Encore's cost substantially more money.) 

 

The big "drawback" of the 231 is engine management, honestly I think that's overrated. Not firewalling the throttle on takeoff and monitoring temps in cruise (a thing you should be doing anyway) are not hard. Boot strapping can be an issue in any turbocharged plane, just bump up the RPM a little bit and it should resolve the issue.

To be fair I have about 80 hours in my 231, so take what I've said above with a grain of salt. But with that I've used the plane for what it really was designed for, long legs with two-three people. Several trips in the 550 mile range and a couple in the 650 mile range.

The one upgrade that I do want to make is an intercooler, if the claims of lowering CHT's is true. I'd love to be able to cruise at 65% LOP in the summer with cowl flaps closed. 

When I upgrade it will either be a Rocket or Bravo both seem to be steals for the purchase price to capability. Either one will have TKS  

[Falcon Man]

Comparisons of K models in my experience:

- My 79 231 LB 210 hp engine with intercooler and automatic waste gate - always had to crack open the cowl flaps at std temp or hotter OAT to keep CHT's below 380F, FF ~ 25 degrees LOP, 65% HP @ 17,500 was ~ 170+ knots TAS.

- My 97 Encore 220 hp SB engine, cowl flap always closed, at std or hotter OAT, - CHT's ~ 350 F,~25 degrees LOP, 65% HP  @ 17,500, ~ 185+ knots TAS.

- My 1984 262 - 210 hp MB engine, had to crack the cowl flap at std temp or above to keep CHT's 350F or less, ~ 25 degrees LOP, 65% HP @ 17,500 ~ 170+ knots TAS.

- My 1986 252 - 210 hp MB engine, cowl flap always closed , CHT's < 350F, ~25 degrees LOP, 65% HP  @ 17,500, 190+ knots TAS.

 Summary:

- The 231 didn't have tuned induction, it required a higher MP than the 252 to produce the same HP, the cowl cooling was inefficient, and the gear isn't fully enclosed by the doors. The 231 burned more fuel by 1-1.5 gph at same % HP.

- The 262 was cooler than the 231 due to the tuned induction and better cooling cowl. The speed was similar.

- The Encore wins the useful load competition, but the 10 hp increase didn't make it any faster than the stock 252.

 

 

 

 

[Fly Boomer]

23 minutes ago, Falcon Man said:

- The Encore wins the useful load competition, but the 10 hp increase didn't make it any faster than the stock 252.

Didn't see that coming.  I thought the Encore would be a bit faster.  That said, I know that every one of these birds have their own characteristics -- some are faster than others and nobody can figure out why.

[Falcon Man]

My AP & AI expert says most Mooneys he has come thru his shop when a "C" or "B" or "P" mechanic has been doing the annuals he finds they are not rigged properly and without the specific Moony calipers for doing so they are not as fast/efficient as they might be otherwise. For example my 97 Encore had an outer top wing panel changed (not in log books!) and it was tweaked and wrong rivets were in place. So we replaced the panel to make it correct. Six out of the seven Mooney's I have owned were not rigged properly, including often the gear and doors needed adjustment.

Think about it - 252 to Encore - a 5% increase in HP, hardly makes a faster plane with a ~ 10% increase in max weight. Many encores have an empty weight of > 2100 #. Mooney did not advertise the Encore as faster than the 252.

 

Jeff

[Z W]

If I understand it right, the extra 10 HP of the TSIO-360-SB engine in the Encore is only used for takeoff and climb with its extra 3" of manifold pressure over the MB in the 252.  At the same cruise power settings it is producing the same power.  The same engine block and pistons can be converted from one configuration to the other.  I'm not aware of any reason an Encore would cruise faster.

As to why some planes cruise faster than others - I think it has a lot to do with instrumentation variation.  When we went from the factory airspeed indicator and engine gauges to new glass, everything changed.  At the same recommended MP, RPM, and leaning settings, peak TIT went up 25-50 degrees, pushing the redline of 1650 and even creeping over it sometimes if you don't watch it.  

As a result, I now fly around with 1 inch lower MP and flow about another 1 gallon of fuel per hour in cruise to keep TIT a little lower.  Ground speed is about the same, maybe 5 knots slower.  The engine didn't change.  I suspect, if the new modern gauges and probes are accurate, we were running the engine slightly harder and hotter than everyone says is a good idea for years, and getting better speed and fuel flows that way.  Had one of the faster reported planes in the fleet then, one of the slower ones now, and nothing changed but the gauges.  I can still get the 5 KTAS back, and pull another 0.5-1 GPH out of the mixture, but don't like the temps it causes.

Also, I think it's possible that some people like to exaggerate their numbers on the internet.

[Steve Dawson]

Just my thoughts: 

Something not mentioned is your resale value when you want to change aircraft or move out of aviation. For naturally aspirated aircraft a J may cost more but will hold its value much better than the earlier models, plus you have all the improvements (speed and efficiency) of that model. An Ovation is nicer and holds their value but the purchase cost and maintenance are higher than it's older cousins. Great aircraft and holds its resale value too. 

 

[Shadrach]

3 minutes ago, Steve Dawson said:

Just my thoughts: 

Something not mentioned is your resale value when you want to change aircraft or move out of aviation. For naturally aspirated aircraft a J may cost more but will hold its value much better than the earlier models, plus you have all the improvements (speed and efficiency) of that model. An Ovation is nicer and holds their value but the purchase cost and maintenance are higher than it's older cousins. Great aircraft and holds its resale value too. 

 

Maybe, I’ve not seen any data to substantiate that. It may prove true down the road, but I can remember when the vintage birds could be had for half of what they are bringing now and it was not that long ago.

[Fly Boomer]

1 hour ago, Z W said:

I'm not aware of any reason an Encore would cruise faster.

My only reason for thinking it might be faster is that Mooney was famous for tweaking small airframe bits to eliminate equally small bits of drag.  The changes weren't all as dramatic as F -> 201 or 231 -> 252.

[Shadrach]

3 hours ago, Z W said:

Also, I think it's possible that some people like to exaggerate their numbers on the internet.

Ya think?…though the prevalence of ADSB data is making it much harder to BS performance numbers. 

[Pinecone]

On 5/27/2024 at 4:55 PM, Falcon Man said:

Comparisons of K models in my experience:

- My 97 Encore 220 hp SB engine, cowl flap always closed, at std or hotter OAT, - CHT's ~ 350 F,~25 degrees LOP, 65% HP  @ 17,500, ~ 185+ knots TAS.

- My 1984 262 - 210 hp MB engine, had to crack the cowl flap at std temp or above to keep CHT's 350F or less, ~ 25 degrees LOP, 65% HP @ 17,500 ~ 170+ knots TAS.

- My 1986 252 - 210 hp MB engine, cowl flap always closed , CHT's < 350F, ~25 degrees LOP, 65% HP  @ 17,500, 190+ knots TAS.

What power settings (MP, RPM, FF) were these at?

 

 

 

 

 

[natdm]

On 5/22/2024 at 3:12 AM, Z W said:

Love the speed, altitude performance, and folding split folding rear seats in the 1982 K.  Very rarely seem to use the back seats for people, but nice to have the option.

Sometimes miss the simplicity and short field performance of the 1968 C.  It just had a different feel.  More like hopping into the trusty 172 trainer for a local scenic flight. It's not a 172, lots more performance, just closer to one than the K. They're great planes.

Of all the things I want in my 1979K, split folding seats are pretty high up there. Wish there was a way to do it that wouldn't break the bank. We seldom use them for people but could use them for more storage.

And for the C, a friend on here has one. We went flying recently and he was off well before the 1000ft markers each time, whereas I'm off just after them. It was amazing and I was jealous.

[BlueSky247]

5 minutes ago, natdm said:

Of all the things I want in my 1979K, split folding seats are pretty high up there. Wish there was a way to do it that wouldn't break the bank. We seldom use them for people but could use them for more storage.

And for the C, a friend on here has one. We went flying recently and he was off well before the 1000ft markers each time, whereas I'm off just after them. It was amazing and I was jealous.

 

You would think that seat option would be more common!

 

Regarding that C - I assume it was cooler out? Tanks not full? Are you both scrawny people?