M20k vs M20J

[jrwilson]

http://www.mooneyland.com/is-a-turbo-mooney-a-better-buy-than-a-201/

 

[jrwilson]

sorry, 2nd link has more of the cost difference breakdown...  Wasn't much difference.

I love my K.  I think the cost differences are primarily market perception and fear of turbos/cost concerns.  K's in general, seem to have more standard equipment than similar vintage J models.

Edited February 8, 2016 by jrwilson

[Jsavage3]

It seems to me that most K-to-J comparisons evolve around 231 numbers compared to 201 numbers.  Based on what I've heard & read, I think the 252 is going to be 10 knots faster than the 231 at any given altitude & power combo.  I believe a 252 at 12K is going to see a distinct advantage over a 201 at 12K...especially considering the 201 can't produce 75% power at that altitude.  The 252's ability to happily climb to 18K+ to find smooth/clear air, tailwinds, etc is what finally made my decision for me.  My J was quite content at 8000-9000 feet, but anything above 10,000 feet, the MP was getting down into the teens and my ability to climb was quickly becoming a wrestling match...my last climb from 10,000-12,000 feet for ATC while near CLT proved that to me yet again. Having owned my 201 for 5 years, recently sold it and now being in contract to buy a 252, I anticipate being able to share some actual numbers very soon.  I fully anticipate being very happy with my change so as to meet my mission.  Will report back soon...

BTW, the J is a fine ship and I don't look at this switch to turbo as an upgrade...simply an upgrade in operational capabilities...

Edited February 8, 2016 by Jsavage3

[jrwilson]

10 hours ago, dlthig said:

18 minutes ago, Jsavage3 said:

It seems to me that most K-to-J comparisons evolve around 231 numbers compared to 201 numbers.  Based on what I've heard & read, I think the 252 is going to be 10 knots faster than the 231 at any given altitude & power combo.  I believe a 252 at 12K is going to see a distinct advantage over a 201 at 12K...especially considering the 201 can't produce 75% power at that altitude.

Sure, a 252 will be even faster.  But a 231 has a distinct advantage over a J at 12k feet.  According to the MAPA article it would be about 19 kts faster.  The MAPA article matches my 231's speeds pretty well. 

 

[M20F]

23 minutes ago, Jsavage3 said:

It seems to me that most K-to-J comparisons evolve around 231 numbers compared to 201 numbers.

Because the 231 and the 201 are comparably priced. 

[dlthig]

Thanks gents. I read the MAPA article and some others. I wanted some real world validation of their numbers. It will most likely come down to useful load and equipment when I finally go off the deep end. 

[jetdriven]

6 hours ago, dlthig said:

Thanks gents. I read the MAPA article and some others. I wanted some real world validation of their numbers. It will most likely come down to useful load and equipment when I finally go off the deep end. 

What's a 231 overhaul and what's a 201 overhaul cost?   Don't forget to add the mid time top to that as well. 

[M20F]

8 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

What's a 231 overhaul and what's a 201 overhaul cost?   Don't forget to add the mid time top to that as well. 

The MAPA article does a good job of listing that out (though the numbers are old so higher these days).    

[ArtVandelay]

6 hours ago, dlthig said: Thanks gents. I read the MAPA article and some others. I wanted some real world validation of their numbers. It will most likely come down to useful load and equipment when I finally go off the deep end. 

What's a 231 overhaul and what's a 201 overhaul cost?   Don't forget to add the mid time top to that as well. 

Mid time top? This is the norm?

[jetdriven]

11 hours ago, M20F said:

The MAPA article does a good job of listing that out (though the numbers are old so higher these days).    

the Mooneyland article is junk science. He claims that a 231 is so much faster that the extra fuel is offset by the faster speed. lets do some math.

M20J, 155 knots, 10 gph.  2000 TBO, 26000$ overhaul cost, from the factory.

M20K 231, 165 knots, 12 gph, 1800 TBO, and overhaul cost 45,000$.  (both quotes from airpower).

 

M02J, 2000 hours, its runout, has flown a theoretical 310,000 miles, and burned 70K worth of gas at 3.50$/gal.

M20J 231, 1800 hours, its also runout, flew 297,000 miles and burned through 75.6K in fuel.

total cost M20J,  $96,000.

M20K 231,  $121m000.    if you have a top overhaul in there, its ~131K. Substantially more.

Im not bagging on the 231, im not. If you want or need the capability, it delivers much more than a 201, but it does come at a substantial cost.

 

[chrisk]

16 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

the Mooneyland article is junk science. He claims that a 231 is so much faster that the extra fuel is offset by the faster speed. lets do some math.

M20J, 155 knots, 10 gph.  2000 TBO, 26000$ overhaul cost, from the factory.

M20K 231, 165 knots, 12 gph, 1800 TBO, and overhaul cost 45,000$.  (both quotes from airpower).

 

M02J, 2000 hours, its runout, has flown a theoretical 310,000 miles, and burned 70K worth of gas at 3.50$/gal.

M20J 231, 1800 hours, its also runout, flew 297,000 miles and burned through 75.6K in fuel.

total cost M20J,  $96,000.

M20K 231,  $121m000.    if you have a top overhaul in there, its ~131K. Substantially more.

Im not bagging on the 231, im not. If you want or need the capability, it delivers much more than a 201, but it does come at a substantial cost.

 

By these numbers about $35K more.  But keep it in perspective.    At 100hours a year, an engine overhaul is years away.  And each year your going to be spending $4K on a hangar, $2K on an annual, $2K on insurance, and some on a gps subscription.  My point being the relative cost may not be all that much.  In 15 years, you will have spent $120K on your hangar and other fixed costs. And $96K to $131K for the plane.  --Added up, its around a 16% adder to fly a 231 vs a 201.  

The most useful thing I can add for saving money on a plane is to get a partner.   It is in this area that a 201 and 231 differ substantially.  Its much easier for someone to abuse a turbo and the costs are more to repair the abuse.   It makes finding a good partner harder.

 

[DonMuncy]

I'm a K owner and quite pleased with my plane. However, I recognize the reality of K ownership. You read about the extra speed of the K, which is factual if you keep it flying at high altitudes. Up to about 8,000 ft, the J is at least as fast. Unless you fly a lot of long flights, you will have trouble justifying a K strictly on speed. On hamburger runs, I seldom spend very much time at levels where the K shines. Even when you climb that high, you still have to account for the time in climb. Couple this with the extra fuel cost when at or below 8 or so, and the K becomes harder to justify.

All that being said, if you do fly longer legs, it doesn't take long to appreciate the advantages of the turbo. Going from Dallas to either coast will almost invariably involve some weather. I routinely fly around 13,000 to 15,000, and it is really nice to be able to see the buildups and be able to maneuver around them. And if you need to climb to avoid some, it is a non event. If you ever need to fly out of high altitude airports, the turbo removes a lot of the worry. I hardly even consider density altitude when decision making.

Can one justify a K on speed or economy; probably not. But I am willing to accept the penalty for the advantages on longer legs.

[Shadrach]

4 minutes ago, chrisk said:

By these numbers about $35K more.  But keep it in perspective.    At 100hours a year, an engine overhaul is years away.  And each year your going to be spending $4K on a hangar, $2K on an annual, $2K on insurance, and some on a gps subscription.  My point being the relative cost may not be all that much.  In 15 years, you will have spent $120K on your hangar and other fixed costs. And $96K to $131K for the plane.  --Added up, its around a 16% adder to fly a 231 vs a 201.  

The most useful thing I can add for saving money on a plane is to get a partner.   It is in this area that a 201 and 231 differ substantially.  Its much easier for someone to abuse a turbo and the costs are more to repair the abuse.   It makes finding a good partner harder.

 

It'd be intersting to take a poll to see how many spend 4K a year or more on a hangar. I'd bet it's a small minority. I don't spend half of that and I'm less than an hour outside the DC beltway.

Also, you've made zero allowances for year to year MX differences and there are MX differences.

If you're not in the high country it's hard to justify. To regularly use one to its real capability would be pushing beyond what I consider conservative decision making (SE above storms and granite) but everyone is different.  there are the west bound trips. Where a normally aspirated bird can blast along at 3500 or below out of the strong winds while running high power LOP (if you're into that sort of thing). You have to be doing 700nm non stop before you're an hour faster than a C model on speed so it really must be about getting over rocks and weather.

[jetdriven]

we pay 5K a year and its not that great of a hangar. Ross, email me at bdr737@gmail.com.  were moving to DC in a year and a half and need to find a hangar.

Edited February 9, 2016 by jetdriven

[Shadrach]

13 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

we pay 5K a year and its not that great of a hangar. Ross, email me at bdr737@gmail.com.  were moving to DC in a year and a half and need to find a hangar.

Will be in touch soon.

 

 

Sent from my iPad

[Hank]

Geez!! 4-5 AMU for a hangar—that's a house payment! To think I was upset when I moved South and rent doubled to $235/month . . . .

[chrisk]

There is a hangar shortage where I live.  I have a cheap hangar at $325 per month, and it only took 5 years on a waiting list to get one.   Shared hangar space is around $300 per month.  And if you don't want to wait 5 years (maybe 6 months instead), you can go to Austin Executive (KEDC). I believe a T hangar goes for $550 per month (but its a really nice fbo)

For the math challenged.  $550 per month is $6600 per year!

 

[M20F]

3 hours ago, jetdriven said:

the Mooneyland article is junk science.

I didn't link the Mooneyland article I listed the MAPA evaluation and their numbers for the F line up with mine and they list all the relevant numbers to compare models/performance.  I don't see it as junk science.

Keep in mind the OP's original question which was J versus K for his mission which involved no O2 and trips 500NM or less.  A K is a very capable plane but for the mission he asked about it is the wrong plane for the mission in my opinion.

[jetdriven]

The MAPA Article, I agree with as well. In todays dollars, around 16$ an hour extra. Thats not cheap, its nearly double the engine costs on a 201, but you do get more airplane for that.

[Mike A]

51 minutes ago, chrisk said:

There is a hangar shortage where I live.  I have a cheap hangar at $325 per month, and it only took 5 years on a waiting list to get one.   Shared hangar space is around $300 per month.  And if you don't want to wait 5 years (maybe 6 months instead), you can go to Austin Executive (KEDC). I believe a T hangar goes for $550 per month (but its a really nice fbo)

For the math challenged.  $550 per month is $6600 per year!

 

Cheapest i've been able to find a hanger in central FL is $300/mo for a group one, $700 for a private t-hanger

[carusoam]

Odd things that I found out after I bought a plane...

1) I fly above 10k' for additional engine-out solutions.

2) Flying East from me requires climbing over Class B airspace often.

Having more power is helpful for these two mission altering odd events.

Best regards,

-a-

[Shadrach]

2 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

The MAPA Article, I agree with as well. In todays dollars, around 16$ an hour extra. Thats not cheap, its nearly double the engine costs on a 201, but you do get more airplane for that.

What would be more interesting is seeing how a TN'd F or J would stack up against a 231. I think J Breda's 68 F will come with in spitting distance on speed.

[Jsavage3]

Appears to me that we all need to go into the hangar building business!  I pay substantially less than $2,000 per year for my T-hangar, but I don't live in the DC suburbs either.  I guess that's how I'll justify the extra expense of my 252 maintenance costs...

[jrwilson]

4 hours ago, jetdriven said:

He claims that a 231 is so much faster that the extra fuel is offset by the faster speed. lets do some math.

So real world numbers, granted it compares my old 20C vs my 231...  On a common trip of mine, Placerville, CA to Fullerton, CA, approx. 320nm.  I would burn 26 gallons in the C at about 140 +/- kts...In the 231, I burn 27 gallons at 172 +/- kts...  So 1 gallon more in the 231, about 20 + minutes faster, higher, smoother air, more comfy...

[Shadrach]

5 hours ago, carusoam said:

Odd things that I found out after I bought a plane...

1) I fly above 10k' for additional engine-out solutions.

2) Flying East from me requires climbing over Class B airspace often.

Having more power is helpful for these two mission altering odd events.

Best regards,

-a-

Do you fly at 10K into 45kt winds when west bound, or do you just sit it out?   I recall making the 296NM trip my Aunt's for Thanksgiving several years back (HGR to AOH) I stayed at or below 3,500 the whole way out because of ever strengthening winds at altitude. I made the westbound trip in 2:20. When I left 2 days later, I remember seeing 175kts GS in the climb at 1000FPM.  I leveled at 11,500 and enjoyed 220-248Kts across the ground for the rest of the trip. We landed almost exactly 1.5hrs after departure.   

I averaged 155Kts for the round trip in a bone stock F. Which is slightly faster than I can cruise.

Edited February 10, 2016 by Shadrach