M20K 231 - family plane?

[Ethan]

I use my 1981 Mooney 231 as a family hauler. I have a 1,000 pound useful load but that's barely enough with 4 160 pound people and their bags. I just returned from a vacation to Bridgeport, California in the Eastern Sierras (I am based at KHIO). The field elevation of Bridgeport (057) is 6,500 feet. The runway is 3800 feet long. Though the airplane gets in and out with aplomb (if you leave early when the air is cool), I find that I am constantly harping on my family to pack light and leave things at home. This isn't always easy with teenagers and people who want to do a full toilette on vacation. When we go shopping I am always putting the kibosh on any "heavy purchases" and telling people not to eat dessert. When my wife wanted to buy 25 pounds of meat to bring home, I asked her to mail it. 

At times, I find myself wishing for a turbo 182, 206, 210 or a turbo Saratoga so I don't have to worry so much about useful load. That said, I cruised home this Saturday LOP at 27.6 inches of MP, 2450 RPM, 1550 TIT, burning 7.9 GPH at 140 KTAS. We had a nice tailwind and were making about 170 kts groundspeed for most of the flight with the cowl flaps closed. I love this efficiency and the cylinder heads were really cool. 

 

 

[kortopates]

31 minutes ago, Ethan said:

At times, I find myself wishing for a turbo 182, 206, 210 or a turbo Saratoga so I don't have to worry so much about useful load.

With a 1000 useful you're doing quite good for a 231. But instead of giving up all that efficiency and speed, you just need to upgrade to a 252/Encore as I did with just under 1140 useful load. But I really think I have the largest useful of any K and I've been working on increasing it for over 25 years. Before the Encore upgrade I used to take off at max gross on just about every longer x-ctry. Since the upgrade I haven't need to too since. 

[PeteMc]

36 minutes ago, Ethan said:

I have a 1,000 pound useful

Just curious if you did anything pulled something specific out or did anything special to get to a full 1000 lbs?

 

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, Ethan said:

I use my 1981 Mooney 231 as a family hauler. I have a 1,000 pound useful load but that's barely enough with 4 160 pound people and their bags. I just returned from a vacation to Bridgeport, California in the Eastern Sierras (I am based at KHIO). The field elevation of Bridgeport (057) is 6,500 feet. The runway is 3800 feet long. Though the airplane gets in and out with aplomb (if you leave early when the air is cool), I find that I am constantly harping on my family to pack light and leave things at home. This isn't always easy with teenagers and people who want to do a full toilette on vacation. When we go shopping I am always putting the kibosh on any "heavy purchases" and telling people not to eat dessert. When my wife wanted to buy 25 pounds of meat to bring home, I asked her to mail it. 

At times, I find myself wishing for a turbo 182, 206, 210 or a turbo Saratoga so I don't have to worry so much about useful load. That said, I cruised home this Saturday LOP at 27.6 inches of MP, 2450 RPM, 1550 TIT, burning 7.9 GPH at 140 KTAS. We had a nice tailwind and were making about 170 kts groundspeed for most of the flight with the cowl flaps closed. I love this efficiency and the cylinder heads were really cool. 

 

 

The breakfast burritos at the Jolly Kone in Bridgeport are worth the wait time and the payload they displace…

[M20F]

Why would anyone buy a 231 to haul 4 people?  
 
You are going to be slower/same speed as an Ovation up until you need O2.  The limited fuel load is going to prohibit a lot of FL flying (by the time you get it up it is time to go down).  Finding 4 people who are going to want to suck O2 is hard, it is expensive, and it is limiting because 4 people use a lot of O2 (get to destination you are going to need to fill the bottle). 
 
Buy an Ovation/Screaming Eagle if you want a Mooney but personally if I was carrying 4 around consistently (that was my mission) it would be A36 or Cherokee 6/Saratoga.  
 
I can’t believe all the posts cheerleading this idea.  

[Ethan]

I pulled out the vacuum system (and an electric backup pump), Installed to G5s, a GFC 500 in the place of the Century 31.

Edited August 19, 2024 by Ethan

[Ethan]

21 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

The breakfast burritos at the Jolly Kone in Bridgeport are worth the wait time and the payload they displace…

The Jolly Kone is magical. I also just love the soft serve ice cream. 

[Ethan]

5 minutes ago, M20F said:

Why would anyone buy a 231 to haul 4 people?  
 
You are going to be slower/same speed as an Ovation up until you need O2.  The limited fuel load is going to prohibit a lot of FL flying (by the time you get it up it is time to go down).  Finding 4 people who are going to want to suck O2 is hard, it is expensive, and it is limiting because 4 people use a lot of O2 (get to destination you are going to need to fill the bottle). 
 
Buy an Ovation/Screaming Eagle if you want a Mooney but personally if I was carrying 4 around consistently (that was my mission) it would be A36 or Cherokee 6/Saratoga.  
 
I can’t believe all the posts cheerleading this idea.  

I agree, a 231 isn't a four people hauler - or any Mooney for that matter. That said, a turbo is indispensable and I wouldn't want an airplane without one. That's why a better four people hauler would be a T182, T206, T210, or Turbo Saratoga.  

[M20F]

1 minute ago, Ethan said:

I agree, a 231 isn't a four people hauler - or any Mooney for that matter. That said, a turbo is indispensable and I wouldn't want an airplane without one. That's why a better four people hauler would be a T182, T206, T210, or Turbo Saratoga.  

I don’t know what your mission is but for 98% of the community it isn’t indispensable.  

 

 

[Ethan]

Well, for me it is. Without belaboring the same three points over and over. I live in the west. The MEAs can be really high. I fly a ton of Angel Flights to and from high airports. When the weather is bad, I can climb above it. For example, I have flown twice this year at FL230 to top weather in the mountains. That said, if I lived and flew in say, Minnesota, I would choose a J model.

[kortopates]

Well, for me it is. Without belaboring the same three points over and over. I live in the west. The MEAs can be really high. I fly a ton of Angel Flights to and from high airports. When the weather is bad, I can climb above it. For example, I have flown twice this year at FL230 to top weather in the mountains. That said, if I lived and flew in say, Minnesota, I would choose a J model.

It’s indispensable for myself as well and a great many of us that after experiencing the benefits have no intention of ever going back to NA. A lot of myths out there that it has to be long x-ctry before it’s worth going high or you loose advantage with head-winds, on and on. So many flights that i would have had to cancel the flight if it wasn’t for the higher options afforded by the turbo.
Bottom line is it adds lots of additional capability.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dkkim73]

31 minutes ago, kortopates said:

It’s indispensable for myself as well and a great many of us that after experiencing the benefits have no intention of ever going back to NA. A lot of myths out there that it has to be long x-ctry before it’s worth going high or you loose advantage with head-winds, on and on. So many flights that i would have had to cancel the flight if it wasn’t for the higher options afforded by the turbo.
Bottom line is it adds lots of additional capability.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is a great enabler. Without it, where I live and commute my options would be far fewer and I would be constantly sweating MEAs. The MORAs would be often far above. 

But it actually simplifies engine management IMHO. 

Even a 1.5 hr flight really benefits from altitude selection, as Paul suggested. 

 

[Falcon Man]

I have owned and flown a 231 w/ LB intercooler/auto waste gate; a 262 w/ MB engine, two stock 252's and a 1997 Encore. My home airport is @ 5300 ft elevation and have landed/took off from many other hot n' high airports. The turbocharged/supercharged K models are well suited to this mission if flying from/to an airport with adequate length. (My previous G/E/J models weren't able to give me the altitude advantages and shorter times spent over the mountainous terrain I fly over.)

The main difference was the 231 had a tendency to have higher CHT's ( > 350 F.) during above std temp's hot days, so I had to accept a lower climb rate after climbing to 1000-1500 ft above field elevation.

IMHO, purchase the lowest price K model and take a few years to upgrade it to whatever you desire. This might be a great way to avoid the current interest rates and inflated market.

Since it's a presidential election year aircraft don't sell as fast until after the election, so that is another factor that might be worth considering.

[m20flyer]

16 hours ago, M20F said:

Why would anyone buy a 231 to haul 4 people?

...

Buy an Ovation/Screaming Eagle if you want a Mooney but personally if I was carrying 4 around consistently (that was my mission) it would be A36 or Cherokee 6/Saratoga.

...

I can’t believe all the posts cheerleading this idea.  

I threw it out there for the feedback.  My initial conclusion that a Mooney is a suboptimal choice for what I need seems to have been correct, unfortunately.  I'd need a turbo Mooney with the UL on the unusually high side.  Even then I'd be load restricted to essential items only.

The solution here is a plane that was meant to carry people and their stuff comfortably at the expense of speed and efficiency.  PA-32, Cessna 200 series, etc.

Bummer.

[Falcon Man]

Informed decisions are great!

[Shadrach]

36 minutes ago, m20flyer said:

I threw it out there for the feedback.  My initial conclusion that a Mooney is a suboptimal choice for what I need seems to have been correct, unfortunately.  I'd need a turbo Mooney with the UL on the unusually high side.  Even then I'd be load restricted to essential items only.

The solution here is a plane that was meant to carry people and their stuff comfortably at the expense of speed and efficiency.  PA-32, Cessna 200 series, etc.

Bummer.

I’m still t to hung to figure out why your mission warrants a turbo?

[NickG]

17 hours ago, M20F said:

Why would anyone buy a 231 to haul 4 people?  
 
You are going to be slower/same speed as an Ovation up until you need O2.  The limited fuel load is going to prohibit a lot of FL flying (by the time you get it up it is time to go down).  Finding 4 people who are going to want to suck O2 is hard, it is expensive, and it is limiting because 4 people use a lot of O2 (get to destination you are going to need to fill the bottle). 
 
Buy an Ovation/Screaming Eagle if you want a Mooney but personally if I was carrying 4 around consistently (that was my mission) it would be A36 or Cherokee 6/Saratoga.  
 
I can’t believe all the posts cheerleading this idea.  

Agree with you. Saratogas are great but unless its an early one (Saratoga Turbo SP 1980-1987) the useful load won't be good. A turbo lance or an early SP are the best for turbo hauling and great UL. Still not that fast and ceiling of 20k. My ovation is faster, NA and has an 1100# UL. I fly it 16-18K and its great. Not as spacious as a PA32 series. Cherokee 6 a great plane but slow and won't get much above 14k comfortably. 

[m20flyer]

38 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

I’m still t to hung to figure out why your mission warrants a turbo?

Recurring flights into the Rockies.  I've done enough mountain flying to know that a turbo is something I really want for our summer trips into high DA.

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, m20flyer said:

Recurring flights into the Rockies.  I've done enough mountain flying to know that a turbo is something I really want for our summer trips into high DA.

Please report back on your experiences.

[m20flyer]

34 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Please report back on your experiences.

I've been limited to NA planes over the last 10 years or so.  My own Beech (IO-520; 285hp), a friend's 172/180hp, and another friend's NA 310.

The Beech would do mountain trips, but I would only try to get up and out of the mountains in the morning.  We had enough margin in cool air and reasonable winds, and it was a good enough plane for my loads back then (pre-kids) but we sold it and I'm not eager to get back into one at today's prices.

The 172/180 is actually a really good plane, but it's still a 172 and you still need to be cognizant of the limitation that a 172 has, especially when you're up high.  You can have a surprisingly decent useful load on a light 172 with the 180hp upgrade and GWI.  Still, not a good hot/high hauler.  I'd take it to Durango (OOC) because the in/out is from/to the flatlands and you can land at Farmington if you're not happy with how the flight is going.

The 310 is good.  But, as with most twins, when you load it up and fly in thin air, it won't fly well on one engine (T310s are different; I really like T310s).  We did a trip to a ski resort in a long valley a couple summers ago.  I landed at an airport at the bottom of the hill, rented a car, and drove the family up to the resort.  Had we flown in, losing an engine would have required a forced landing in a high valley.  Very limited escape routes and not a lot of room to return to the airport.  At least going to the lower airport would have given me options to land on roads or farm fields.

Prior to 2013, all of my flying was in turbo'd twins (Cessna 300/400) and turboprops doing firefighting and UPS cargo.  Both of those jobs were in the mountains.  The fire was exclusively a summer thing and the fright was all year around.

So, maybe I just got spoiled with TSIO piston engines.  Those anemic climb rates in NA singles are just less and less comfortable as I get older.

[Shadrach]

3 minutes ago, m20flyer said:

I've been limited to NA planes over the last 10 years or so.  My own Beech (IO-520; 285hp), a friend's 172/180hp, and another friend's NA 310.

The Beech would do mountain trips, but I would only try to get up and out of the mountains in the morning.  We had enough margin in cool air and reasonable winds, and it was a good enough plane for my loads back then (pre-kids) but we sold it and I'm not eager to get back into one at today's prices.

The 172/180 is actually a really good plane, but it's still a 172 and you still need to be cognizant of the limitation that a 172 has, especially when you're up high.  You can have a surprisingly decent useful load on a light 172 with the 180hp upgrade and GWI.  Still, not a good hot/high hauler.  I'd take it to Durango (OOC) because the in/out is from/to the flatlands and you can land at Farmington if you're not happy with how the flight is going.

The 310 is good.  But, as with most twins, when you load it up and fly in thin air, it won't fly well on one engine (T310s are different; I really like T310s).  We did a trip to a ski resort in a long valley a couple summers ago.  I landed at an airport at the bottom of the hill, rented a car, and drove the family up to the resort.  Had we flown in, losing an engine would have required a forced landing in a high valley.  Very limited escape routes and not a lot of room to return to the airport.  At least going to the lower airport would have given me options to land on roads or farm fields.

Prior to 2013, all of my flying was in turbo'd twins (Cessna 300/400) and turboprops doing firefighting and UPS cargo.  Both of those jobs were in the mountains.  The fire was exclusively a summer thing and the fright was all year around.

So, maybe I just got spoiled with TSIO piston engines.  Those anemic climb rates in NA singles are just less and less comfortable as I get older.

I think the injected, NA, mid bodies do fine up to the oxygen levels, though they do warrant more carful consideration when loaded to MGW. My comments were specifically around runway performance as I don’t think a K model will out perform a lighter J or F until the DA gets to ridiculous (>12K) levels. 

[M20F]

There is an immaculate Excalibur Tbone listed in the Tbone forum on Beechtalk.  

[m20flyer]

44 minutes ago, M20F said:

There is an immaculate Excalibur Tbone listed in the Tbone forum on Beechtalk.  

My wife would be on board with a TwinBo with the side facing sofa and airstair!  Talk about a money pit though.

[M20F]

Just now, m20flyer said:

My wife would be on board with a TwinBo with the side facing sofa and airstair!  Talk about a money pit though.

I never owned one but we parked our AC560 next to one for years and neither plane was problematic.  It’s like any old airplane.  If it has been well maintained (and the pedigree on this aircraft is impeccable) then it isn’t really any better worse than any other plane. 

[MikeOH]

I'm used to 8.5-9 gph....any idea what a pair of fire-breathing IO-720s burn per hour?