1978 Mooney M20J 201 (Nice!)

T

teethdoc

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Messages
241
Display Name
Display name:
teethdoc
1978 Mooney M20J 201 New Price!!! - $99,900

If you are looking for a J model, this is your bird. She is turn key and one of the nicest 201s you will find. You will get compliments on every ramp. Engine was recently replaced with zero time Lycoming factory reman. Every speed mod you can think of including Lopresti Cowl, 1 piece belly, and Power Flow exhaust. With the g430W coupled with the rock solid kfc 200 AP, you can settle in at an altitude and heading and enjoy the view. 64 Gallon O&P bladders added 8/14. Nothing like cruising at 150+ knots on around 10gph. $99,900

http://www.controller.com/listingsd...EY-M20J-201/1978-MOONEY-M20J-201/1336367.htm?
 

Attachments

  • Front left.jpg
    Front left.jpg
    813.8 KB · Views: 235
  • int rear.JPG
    int rear.JPG
    306.2 KB · Views: 175
Last edited:
I'd imagine that should true at 165+ KTAS based on description @<10.5GHP

Has it been test flown with the Zero time engine?
 
Bill Jennings said:
Looks great! Moving up or out? I wish you a speedy sale.
Click to expand...
Thanks. A little of both. I have a new business I'm trying to get off the ground and trying not to borrow more money than I have to. The toys have to go. My hope is that I can rent for a while, then get a Saratoga or something that will fit my family a little better.
 
teethdoc said:
Thanks. A little of both. I have a new business I'm trying to get off the ground and trying not to borrow more money than I have to. The toys have to go. My hope is that I can rent for a while, then get a Saratoga or something that will fit my family a little better.
Click to expand...

Best of luck!
 
Jaybird180 said:
I'd imagine that should true at 165+ KTAS based on description @<10.5GHP

Has it been test flown with the Zero time engine?
Click to expand...

I have not done a test flight for TAS yet with the new prop and engine. I've just been making break-in flights on the new engine so far, running her like a scalded dog with not much attention to fuel flow. The old platform was getting about that, more like 12gph and 165k ROP, or Lean her out and get 155k on a little less than 10gph.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I'd imagine that should true at 165+ KTAS based on description @<10.5GHP

Has it been test flown with the Zero time engine?
Click to expand...

10.5 won't get 165kts, closer to 12.5 for that running balls to the wall.

I always wondered why Mooney didn't put a 260hp IO-470, I think it would be the right engine. It's too slick of an airframe to optimize out as slow as 200hp leaves one. It's still a very efficient airframe at 300hp speeds, but that's an expensive engine. The IO or TSIO 470s are considerably less costly all around than 520s or 550s and you could probably still manage 3 mile a minute/180kt cruise on 15gph.

If they ever put through the Non Commercial Experimental category a TNIO-470 powered Mooney could be in my future.
 
Henning said:
10.5 won't get 165kts, closer to 12.5 for that running balls to the wall.

I always wondered why Mooney didn't put a 260hp IO-470, I think it would be the right engine. It's too slick of an airframe to optimize out as slow as 200hp leaves one. It's still a very efficient airframe at 300hp speeds, but that's an expensive engine. The IO or TSIO 470s are considerably less costly all around than 520s or 550s and you could probably still manage 3 mile a minute/180kt cruise on 15gph.

If they ever put through the Non Commercial Experimental category a TNIO-470 powered Mooney could be in my future.
Click to expand...

I've run a lot of numbers on different types and the M-20J always comes out top with the 200HP engine as best MPG.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I've run a lot of numbers on different types and the M-20J always comes out top with the 200HP engine as best MPG.
Click to expand...

Sure, it just under performs what it could before climbing into the steep side of the consumption curve. You can slow any of the same airframe down to the same speed and get the same MPG regardless what is powering it within a very small margin of difference. I like 3 miles a minute for a traveling plane because it allows me to get corner to corner across the US in a day, long day yes, but a day. This is not untypical of my flight profiles. A M-20J with 200hp isn't going to give me that, it's going to require an overnight and the associated costs which will eradicate any savings the extra 1.5 mpg vs. running 180 gets.

Granted, this is not everyone's flight profile, but the request for speed was great enough that Mooney built the big engine ones as well. I could always back one down to 180, but I like the 470 better than the 520 or 550.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Any theories on what the 470 would do to the MPGs?
Click to expand...

Decrease them. Bigger engine, cowling and prop adds more weight. If you run your engine at stoichiometric peak, then all the fuel is being turned into power. Let's say you use 9 gallons an hour with the IO-360. Those 9 gallons of fuel only have so much available power.

Now lets say you run your IO-470 the same way and back the throttle off to achieve the same 9 gph. You have the same available energy, but the airplane weights more and so has more drag. In addition, the 6 cylinder engine has more friction losses so less of the 9 gph energy actually makes it to the prop. The over all result is lower speed on the same fuel burn.

Now, what about if you open the throttle up on the 470 and go faster than the 360 can even go. Would you get better mpg this way? I don't think so. As you accelerate, the amount of drag is not linear, it goes up exponentially, so the amount of power needed to overcome this drag goes up significantly.

Assuming the drag coefficient, the density of the air and the frontal area of the plane remain the same (they wouldn't be because of the difference in weight), the velocity the plane travels gets squared to derive the amount of force needed to equal the drag. So as you increase in speed, the power needed is greatly increased.

Nobody would know for sure how a IO-470 would perform because nobody to my knowledge has ever built one. However, the IO-470 and the IO-550 weigh nearly the same and so create nearly the same amount of drag on the plane. There are mid body Mooneys (M20Js and Ks) out there with the IO-550 motor on them.

They were an aftermarket STC mod made by Rocket Engineering and were called the Mooney Missile. This airplane could be flown and throttled back to say 180 HP and you would get a rough idea of what the performance of the IO-470 plane would be like.

Maybe there is someone on here that has a Missile and would like to go out and report the numbers?:dunno:
 
Last edited:
Dav8or said:
Decrease them. Bigger engine, cowling and prop adds more weight. If you run your engine at stoichiometric peak, then all the fuel is being turned into power. Let's say you use 9 gallons an hour with the IO-360. Those 9 gallons of fuel only have so much available power.

Now lets say you run your IO-470 the same way and back the throttle off to achieve the same 9 gph. You have the same available energy, but the airplane weights more and so has more drag. In addition, the 6 cylinder engine has more friction losses so less of the 9 gph energy actually makes it to the prop. The over all result is lower speed on the same fuel burn.

Now, what about if you open the throttle up on the 470 and go faster than the 360 can even go. Would you get better mpg this way? I don't think so. As you accelerate, the amount of drag is not linear, it goes up exponentially, so the amount of power needed to overcome this drag goes up significantly.

Assuming the drag coefficient, the density of the air and the frontal area of the plane remain the same (they wouldn't be because of the difference in weight), the velocity the plane travels gets squared to derive the amount of force needed to equal the drag. So as you increase in speed, the power needed is greatly increased.

Nobody would know for sure how a IO-470 would perform because nobody to my knowledge has ever built one. However, the IO-470 and the IO-550 weigh nearly the same and so create nearly the same amount of drag on the plane. There are mid body Mooneys (M20Js and Ks) out there with the IO-550 motor on them.

They were an aftermarket STC mod made by Rocket Engineering and were called the Mooney Missile. This airplane could be flown and throttled back to say 180 HP and you would get a rough idea of what the performance of the IO-470 plane would be like.

Maybe there is someone on here that has a Missile and would like to go out and report the numbers?:dunno:
Click to expand...

I think you hit the nail with the drag increasing with square of speed but it would be silly to run the IO-470 at the same fuel consumption when you have an extra 110 CuInches of volume, you're leaning the engine and not making best power for that engine.

Then efficiencies change with engine/ airframe/ prop combinations and it's always a tradeoff.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I think you hit the nail with the drag increasing with square of speed but it would be silly to run the IO-470 at the same fuel consumption when you have an extra 110 CuInches of volume, you're leaning the engine and not making best power for that engine.

Then efficiencies change with engine/ airframe/ prop combinations and it's always a tradeoff.
Click to expand...

Exactly, you'll run it where it makes sense to run the engine. Will you pay a penalty for the extra 60hp and 20 knots, yes, most certainly. Will you pay as much as if you get the 550 with 300hp and run it where it makes sense to run? No. But the 550 goes faster than I want and the 360 doesn't go fast enough. The 470 would put me right about where I want to be running in its sweet spot power wise about half way between the 150 and 210 using the square root of the difference between the 360 and 550 extra to do it. Just a compromise between fuel and speed that can save me money on overnights.

BTW, the 6 cylinder is no less thermally efficient than the four cylinder. You don't get more work out of the fuel by having less cylinders. Six cylinders also balances much better. 12 is the smoothest, 10 is the most efficient for making power, 8 is the best compromise between 12 and 10.
 
The Missile I flew a few times I recall as truing out around 175. So a 260 HP engine would probably do around 165, maybe in the high 160s.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The Missile I flew a few times I recall as truing out around 175. So a 260 HP engine would probably do around 165, maybe in the high 160s.
Click to expand...

Should do better. I flew with Roy in his J and IIRC we were doing 163ish KIAS down low on 10.5GPH.
 
Missiles are 175-180 KTAS planes with pretty moderate fuel flow (13-14 GPH range IIRC).

The only J's I've heard of doing > 160 KTAS at less than race power were modified with extreme drag reduction + LoPresti cowl mods. Most are 155 KTAS at normal cruise power, +/- 3-4 knots for weight, temperature and rigging variations.
 
If I recall correctly, David's M20J would easily true 160 knots on less than 10 gph up high.
 
KSMooniac said:
Missiles are 175-180 KTAS planes with pretty moderate fuel flow (13-14 GPH range IIRC).

The only J's I've heard of doing > 160 KTAS at less than race power were modified with extreme drag reduction + LoPresti cowl mods. Most are 155 KTAS at normal cruise power, +/- 3-4 knots for weight, temperature and rigging variations.
Click to expand...
I have every speed mod you can think of including the Lopresti Cowl. No way I would pay the $30g it costs to buy and install one, but a Mooney with one already installed is a sweet ride.
 
Henning said:
Exactly, you'll run it where it makes sense to run the engine. Will you pay a penalty for the extra 60hp and 20 knots, yes, most certainly. Will you pay as much as if you get the 550 with 300hp and run it where it makes sense to run? No. But the 550 goes faster than I want and the 360 doesn't go fast enough. The 470 would put me right about where I want to be running in its sweet spot power wise about half way between the 150 and 210 using the square root of the difference between the 360 and 550 extra to do it. Just a compromise between fuel and speed that can save me money on overnights.
Click to expand...

All probably true. Jaybird was just wondering what such a conversion might do to the fuel efficiency of the J. IMO, it would be compromised in exchange for higher cruise speed. Your conversion might actually prove to be popular in time.

Anyone who has ever modified a Mooney has always been obsessed with speed. This is why Rocket Engineering chose the IO-550 instead of the IO-470. Same weight penalty but more HP. However, what the IO-470 brings to the table is greater reliability and lower cost of ownership, or so I've heard. I think this mod might be a good one, but sadly it will never come to pass because the huge expense and liability involved with the STC process.

Personally I think the ultimate engine mod for the M20 is installing a turbo normalized system on the Lycoming IO-360. This gives you the low cost of operation of the four cylinder 360, the same fuel efficiency as the NA M20J and the ability to operate at much higher altitudes and therefore go much faster like the M20K. I guess it's because I don't have a ton of money that I obsess more about fuel savings.

BTW, the 6 cylinder is no less thermally efficient than the four cylinder. You don't get more work out of the fuel by having less cylinders. Six cylinders also balances much better. 12 is the smoothest, 10 is the most efficient for making power, 8 is the best compromise between 12 and 10.
Click to expand...

It may be purely academic, but I would argue that the four cylinder is more efficient than the six due to friction losses. Sure the same amount of gas does the same amount of work, but you have additional bearing surfaces and piston skirts creating friction and therefore wasted energy. The amount this can be measured is likely small.

On the other hand, sixes do vibrate less and I suppose that additional vibration is also lost energy. I addition, smaller piston sizes may mean better flame propagation and a faster, more complete burn. All I do know is a four is cheaper to own than a six! :D
 
There is the cause of the vibration which is at the heart of it, there is less loss and gain of inertia between pulses so more of the power goes to the drive rather than into the rotating mass. I used to fly an Exec with a TN-360, good plane but needs O2 to go fast.
 
Back to the top with new price of $109,900.
 
Last time around before heading off to a broker. $99,900!!
 
teethdoc said:
Last time around before heading off to a broker. $99,900!!
Click to expand...
Ouch. You are getting close to my price point. I am going to have to think about this and figure out what to do with my 172.

Where is this plane now?
I am in Florida, but I will be in Indianapolis on Sep 18,19, & 20. We had planned on flying the 172 but the 10 day weather forecast is not to promising so we might have to fly commercial.:no:
 
It's hangared at KBHM. I will not be around next week, but could probably arrange somebody to let you take a look.
 
anyone considering a mooney should really look at this plane. nearly new motor with bladders. You've addressed two of the bigger squawks right away. Just the motor, bladder, cowling and exhaust mods are nearly 70% of the asking price of this plane.
 
I think a Mooney would be a good retirement plane for me. Unfortunately that's about 40 years down the road.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I can't believe the price is down to this level now... there is a LOT of value at this price. Anyone on the fence should be checking it out.
 
Phone has been ringing off the hook today since I dropped the price below $100k!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top