201 vs. 231

[Terry]

[Chris White ex-N205KD]

Quote: Terry

[DonMuncy]

My 231 is a 3 person, full fuel and reasonable bagage plane.   Wth 4 normal sized adults, you will have to leave out some fuel.  I checked recently and found that to carry me (150#) and wife and two hefty friends (approx. 200# each), I was good for about 2 hours fuel.

[Terry]

Thanks for all the info, Don, what is the empty wt of your 231? Wish I had a chance to fly with you but our DAL/DFW layovers have gone away. All equipment being the same how much higher is the empty wt of the K over the J ?

[KSMooniac]

Another reference point...my '77 J is 1720 empty, 2740 gross.  It has been upgraded/maintained over the years and not had the weight creep that is common.  Interior and glass were replaced, but with standard thickness glass and nothing extravagant on the interior either.  The panel was updated with modern radios and the old heavy stuff was removed, so that helps too.  You'll have to ask for specific useful loads for any candidate airplanes...they are really all over the map!

I've done some 450-500 mile trips with 4 folks (2 guys/2 gals) and bags.  Flying LOP at 8-9 GPH means 45 gallons of fuel is plenty for these kinds of trips so my J *can* be a 4 place traveling machine if I'm careful.  I can't take 4 200 lb guys and bags, though, very far! 

I agree that the price delta between the Ks and Js is much smaller now than 2 years ago when I purchased.  I never considered a 231 at the time, and I'd have a hard time choosing today.  I like the simplicity (and frugalness) of the Lycoming 4-banger vs. the TCM 6-banger + turbo.  I mostly fly XC trips so I could possibly take advantage of a turbo, and some of my trips are to CO where a turbo would be wonderful.  Having a turbo-normalized Lycoming IO-360 would be optimal...and I'm thinking about doing that mod.  There are almost never any on the market in this configuration!

Regarding installed equipment, if you're on a budget you might consider skipping the FD/HSI that was installed in many of the 201s or 231s.  I say that because the expense of keeping them going is non-trivial.  My plane didn't have either and had an STEC-30 autopilot that doesn't require the expensive gyro inputs.  If you want an HSI, I think the Aspen unit is *very* compelling since it is ultimately lighter and includes a GPSS module that can feed an STEC autopilot and should be more reliable in the long-run than mechanical gyros + the extra bits for the HSI.  The fancier King autopilots for now require those gyros and if one goes down they are thousands to overhaul/replace.  The Aspen is on my wish list someday and would enable me to completely ditch the vacuum system so I could recover the weight of two full gyros, vacuum pump and all the plumbing.  So, if you find a good plane without them, you'll pay less up front and could use that money to upgrade when you're ready and ultimately save some weight and avoid upkeep costs down the road.

All American Aircraft in San Antonio has a '78 J with the Turbo-Bullet mod that has been on the market for a long time and seen the asking price fall.  The T-B mod originally boosted the Lycoming to 38" MP but there was an AD (after a crash) to limit it to 33".  It uses low compression pistons, so I think 33" with those pistons is more-or-less about the same power as a normal 360 at 30".  It would be much better if it was turbo-normalized IMO, but it might be worth a look.

 

[DonMuncy]

My 231 has an empty weight (calculated) of 1950.  That yields a useful load of 950. Full fuel (72 gals or 432 lbs) leaves 518 for me, passengers and baggage.  I weigh 150, leaving 368.  I hate to admit it, but my flight bag is about 20 pounds. leaving 348.  So, with full fuel and no baggage, my 3 passengers can only weigh 116 each.

This also ignores little details like your handheld GPS and all the coats and things people stuff in their pockets when they fly

[Terry]

Thanks for all the information, that is a great empty wt for your airplane. With my wife and I being under 300# and 50 gals of fuel it would get the job done.

I see a lot of them with HSIs installed but would not go for a new install, like you said the whole Aspen setup looks good. Seems like there have been some complaints on this list or elsewhere about the Aspen. Also the way these companies come and go I worry about support down the road. I would hate to be stuck with a 10K black box no one can fix. I have looked at it and now that I have gotten used to the flat panel in the “76” I don’t mind it too much. We have a mix of CRTs and flat panel airplanes and it’s a pain  going back forth between them. For the first few legs I keep looking at the clock for airspeed (the only round dial in the airplane and in the same place as the airspeed on the others)

And yes, my gut says keep it simple and just look at the J. We'll see what is on the market this summer and just keep banking the money till the right one comes along. The longer I can contain myself the nicer the airplane I can buy. I'm sure this list will be a big help in finding a good airplane also.

Terry

[Mooneyland]

It was interesting reading all of the comments re: 201 vs. 231. I had even writen an article about that on my website having owned a 201 for almost six years, but never personally owned a 231, yet I have many hours in various 231's. We all know the obvious benefits of having a turbo in an airplane. Considering that we lose horsepower with altitude in normally asperated Mooneys, turbos would seem to be the answer for aircraft. While true it can be a bit more expensive owning and operating a turbo'd airplane, it can also make the difference in saving one's bacon should you get ice at altitude as I did in my 201. At 12,000' there was simply not enough horse power to ensure my safe arrival in Las Vegas that time when no ice was in the forecast. Worthy of mention is the fact that few if any 201's have a hot prop while many 231's do and if you ever get ice on your prop as I did and nearly didn't make it to my destination because of that and not enough HP in my engine to hold altitude, I had began to think about moving up to a 231.

Most 231's don't have a muffler (I've seen one). All 201's do and the life expectancy of the turbo is about that of the muffler so that part is about a push except turbo's lately have gone up in price to overhaul above that of the muffler. A 231 usually burns about 12.7 GPH in cruise, in fact I normally lean to that fuel flow at 75%. However with the advent of Gami Injectors; the 231 will burn down to around 10 gph happily running lean of peak. I'm not sure if any other aircraft engine benefits as much as the 231 does from Gami's. Many 231's have engine monitors and I have flown quite a number of 231's before and after the conversion and the results are remarkable. I also feel that Gami's help keep the 231 cylinders healthier because they are all running at about the same temperatures and most top overhauls in 231's were not really needed so much as re-doing the two hot running rear cylinders, but sales talk by the mechanic would usually convince 231 owners to do a complete top even though it may only need those two hot cylinders done. In any event, most of the 231's that I have sold have been converted to Gami's on my persuasion to do so and they are all very pleased that I talked them into the conversion.

So while the 231 can be somewhat more expensive to operate than the 201 but really doesn't have to be; if you take care of things and are a decent engine operator, the 231 will also endear itself to you as the 201's already do. Ham handed pilots don't fair so well with that engine.

I will say this: I have never had a 231 engine so much as break wind while I've had several engine failures in the IO-360, mostly due to the old style fuel injector combined with improper maintenance practices. The six-pack engine is easier to hot start, smoother to run, and even quieter. My experience is about half of the 231's require a top (or at least major cyl work) on the way to TBO and half don't require the top. In studying this thing I came to the conclusion that those that make it to TBO without a top were operated at more reasonable altitudes (12-17K) and flown correctly whereby a 201 engine can take a certain amount of abuse without tearing up the engine so long as you're aware of the problems the single dual mag can cause in certain situations. (Keep watch on the mag's mounting bolt for loosness).

As in all of flying, everything becomes a trade-off. The 231 will normally use more runway for takeoff than the 201 seems to because it is only 10 more horsepower and the 231 is a heavier airplane, so keep that in mind when transitioning to the 231. If you have Gami's in the 231, expect the fuel burn to be about the same as a 201 so that's a push. However, the 231 being a faster airplane (at altitude); arriving quicker to a destination places less time on your airframe, engine, instruments, you, etc. and that has to be considered in the weighing process of which way to go.

The most interesting conclusion I had arrived at was that the 231 top overhaul rate seemed no different whether it was the orginal GB, LB, LB1, or even the MB as found in the 252's engine. About half of any of them make it to TBO w/o a top and the other half get a top. Gami's in the 252 are not that effective because the 252 has a much improved air induction system, but in the 231 application can save large in maintenance and fuel over time closing any gap between operating costs.

Sex appeal whether we admit it or not is no small reason that we own airplanes, and in my flying experience; as sexy as the 201 is, the 231 is sexier to fly if that makes any sense. When that engine is idling, it is exciting to hear due to the cam lobes and never seems to spit and pop after landing as many 201's do. The bottom line is that if you have to stretch to afford the operating costs of a 201, then the 231 is probably not for you, but if you have a few extra bux to invest, the 231 is an amazing performer for only 210 horsepower. The 252 has magic in it because it is appreciably faster than the 231 with the same horsepower and even those 231's that have been converted to the 252 engine cannot keep up. Many experienced Mooney types will agree that the 252 is the finest Mooney ever to be produced. That being the case, the 231 is close, but then again; all Mooneys are the finest aircraft in their class, and the E model hot rod is probably the best bang for the buck on the lower $$ end, but as I said, they're all good!

Fly safe,

richard zephro; Mooneyland

[rasman]

231 vs J

I generally fly at 14.5 13.2 gph running 125 ROP 192 kts True.

111 Gallon fuel capacity, range is not a problem.

My 231 has the LB Engine Intercooler and Pop off valve. Merlyn waste gate is next 3k

My personal favorite thing to do is get up there with the winds. Ever seen 300kt ground speed.

While shopping around I found the J and 231 price to be about the same.

From a maintenance perspective I anticipate spending 4k annually for maintenance including annual.  

 

One small confession my pilot buddies now refer to me as a turbo snob J.

[231Pilot]

Quote: Mooneyland

The bottom line is that if you have to stretch to afford the operating costs of a 201, then the 231 is probably not for you, but if you have a few extra bux to invest, the 231 is an amazing performer for only 210 horsepower. The 252 has magic in it because it is appreciably faster than the 231 with the same horsepower and even those 231's that have been converted to the 252 engine cannot keep up. Many experienced Mooney types will agree that the 252 is the finest Mooney ever to be produced. That being the case, the 231 is close, but then again; all Mooneys are the finest aircraft in their class, and the E model hot rod is probably the best bang for the buck on the lower $$ end, but as I said, they're all good!

[RJBrown]

Quote: JimR

 In Nov of 1994 I was in the market for my first airplane. I found a local 231 with 1170 hours on it. After it passed the prebuy at the local MSC I bought it. During the next 7 months I flew it all over the west. Visiting San Marcos TX, Catalina Island CA, Jackson Hole WYO, Phoenix AZ, Seattle WA and Salt Lake UT. As I put those 100 hour on it the oil consumption slowly rose. The MSC assured me that the engine was OK And sold me a M-20 oil air separator. On my trip up to Spokane WA to visit my cousin It used a little over 2 quarts in 4 hours. Topped the oil and took off for Denver. Once over the mountains of North Western Idaho I noticed oil temps rising and pressure dropping. I made a precautionary landing in Orofino ID.There was less than 3 quarts in the engine after only 8/10th of an hour. A man in a pickup heard my radio calls and met me at the airport.  We pulled the cowl fill the oil and did a run up. I expected to find that the vacuum pump installed that morning was the source of the oil loss. No leaks, the oil was blowing out the exhaust. At that point I re cowled the engine and flew first to Lewiston then Moscow then Spokane checking and adding oil at each stop. Long story short 6 months later I owned a 305 Rocket. 

 In subsequent investigation I learned that 1200-1300 hours is the decision point for most 231 pilots. Checking logs and for sale ads it became apparent that most 231s either got a OH or at top and a turbo around that time. V-REF considers the 231 engine a 1530 hour engine and I consider them generous. Unless it has had a resent top and turbo I consider any 231 runout at 1300 hours. Any 231 should already have the Merlyn and an inter cooler and the lack thereof I consider poor maintenance. I was burned by believing in the 1800 hour TBO. It is not like a Lycoming IO-360 where most make it to 2000 or beyond without major work.

 As a Rocket the K is an amazing airplane, a true 4 passenger airplane. It will lift almost anything you can close the door on up to the flight levels at over 1000 FMP. It will then cruise at 200 Knots at 12,000' and faster higher. At light weights I have seen 1500 FPM at 26,000'. All that performance comes at a price. 35+ GPH in the climb and 20+ in cruise. Handled properly most Rockets surpass the 1600 Hour TBO and many pass 1800. They are more like the 252 in this respect. The TSIO-520NB has a proven track record in Cessna twins and the Rocket.

 After operating it as a Rocket for over 700 hour I sold it in March of 2003. Broke my heart to look back at her on the ramp in Vegas as I walked away. I chose to sell her for a land deal and I missed not flying for almost 6 years. With the sale of a warehouse in the fall of 1998 I held out enough to buy another airplane.

 I found myself in the market, expecting to buy another 231. I looked at Rockets and even had a contract and a prebuy on a TLS. I decided that I did not need the expense they require as I head into retirement. I will retire in 5-8 years and this plane will be my retirement toy. I looked at all the 231s out there and barley missed buying on a couple of reasonably priced ones. Most of the others either had problems or their owners had not heard we were in a recession and were asking way over market. 2 years later some are still for sale. A local Broker had a 79 231 for sale so I went to look at it. Unfortunately it still had 79 radios and the brand new paint was just plain ugly. This broker also had a 1650 hour 1990 MSE for sale. He talked me into taking a look.

 Now I was in the 210 vs 231 debate for myself and for real. After weighing all the pros and cons I surprised my self and bought the J model.

 What it came down to was costs and climb. The fixed costs of both planes are about the same. The operating costs for a 231 are about 1 1/2 times that of the 201. Fuel, maintenance and repairs are all about half again more for the 231. Engine reserve costs are even higher. According to V-REF the 201 reserve cost is $12.00 per hour while the 231 is $22.00 per hour. A 201 operates up to about 16000' while the 231 can climb to it's service ceiling of 24000' faster than the 201 can make 16000. The costs are 1 1/2 half times as high and so is the climb for a 231. If you are willing and able to pay the additional costs the 231 is a wonderful airplane. For me I made the practical decision to buy the MSE. That is if any decision to buy an airplane is practical.

 As I fly west of Denver where 15 miles from my home the MEAs start at 15500 there are times where I wish I had made the other choice. Though as I cruise on 8 GPH behind a much more durable engine I feel reassured that I made the right decision FOR ME. There are still times that I cheat on my bird and look at those for sale. In fact there is a pretty 1980 231 up in Wyoming for sale on trade a plane right now. It has under 20 hours on a new prop and a factory engine, it even has a Garmin. If It had been available a year ago I might be writing this from the other side.

 Both airplanes are GREAT. The step up from a Piper to a 201 is more than onto the 231. You will be happy with either plane. Both the 201 and the 231 are the fastest and most efficient plane in their class.

Good luck and blue skies

Randy

[laytonl]

Quote: KSMooniac

Dave, my only advice would be to buy the best example you can find, and that will minimize the surprises down the road.  You probably already realize that thanks to your Cherokee experience, though.  Find one that was cared-for with timely maintenance and upgrades by the owner, and not one that was simply "used up" just to be passed down the line.

I'm at my 2 year anniversary this weekend, and the only surprise I've had was a landing gear motor that gave up the ghost ($1000 rebuild and labor) as I was about to land at Willmar for fuel tank rehab ($8000).  Other than that, I've added an HID landing light ($450 + my labor), replaced the balky OAT gauge with a Davtron M655 ($200 + my labor), and Garmin WAAS upgrade x2 ($3400 total).  Minor stuff at annual like filters, strobe light lenses, baffle seals, plugs etc don't really count in my opinion.    My annual is due in February, and I'm debating about replacing the tach with a Horizon electronic model and/or sending my yokes off for a leather covering at Aero Comfort.  Paint and a LoPresti cowl are high on the wish list for later in the spring.