Real world cruise speed differences - M20E and C182

G-Man

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Nov 13, 2012
Messages
1,050
Location
Boulder, CO
Display Name

Display name:
AirmanG
Anyone have good info on real-world planning KTAS speeds for Cessna 182 and Mooney M20E?
Lots of other differences in the two aircraft, but I'm trying to determine cruise speeds. For example, an 856nm flight - KBJC KSAF KABQ KALM KBJC - gives me the following times for 865nm:
120 kts 7:13
125 kts 6:57
130 kts 6:41
135 kts 6:24
140 kts 6:11
145 kts 5:58
(Does not include taxi, climb, descend, pattern, etc. - just straight miles and averages speed.)

Will the C182 cruise 125 KTAS?
Will the Mooney do 135 KTAS?
Too high? Too low? Thanks...
 
135 knots TAS is doable in most ANY M20 variant. If it won't there is something wrong with it.
 
I'd think a 182 of any variant (maybe not floats) would do 130kts maybe 135kts+ if truly cleaned up/rigged.
 
130knots at fairly economical settings is easy in most 182s.
 
My M20c cruises at 140 knots all day. I've heard E owners claim 150 knots, and I believe it. Of course, the other thing to think about is fuel flow. The Mooney will burn 9, maybe 10 gallons an hour depending on how hard you flog it. A Skylane will burn way more than that. Skylane carries more gas, so you may not require the fuel stop.

Where the Skylane shines is in short strips and unimproved ones. Mooneys are short, they don't always work that well on unimproved surfaces, always worried about the prop strike. Skylanes don't have that limitation by much. they can power their way out of just about anything.

The other big advantage to a Skylane is you can put four adults in it and their crap, fill the tanks and fly. I don't know another aircraft that will do that. Oh, you can fill the seats and fly the Mooney, but the back seat passengers are either going to be children, midgets, or dogs.
 
I get 140-145 in my 182. Carried 3 big guys and luggage up to Oshkosh (570nm) without stopping and we had a little over 2 hours of gas left.
 
My M20c cruises at 140 knots all day. I've heard E owners claim 150 knots, and I believe it. Of course, the other thing to think about is fuel flow. The Mooney will burn 9, maybe 10 gallons an hour depending on how hard you flog it. A Skylane will burn way more than that. Skylane carries more gas, so you may not require the fuel stop.

Where the Skylane shines is in short strips and unimproved ones. Mooneys are short, they don't always work that well on unimproved surfaces, always worried about the prop strike. Skylanes don't have that limitation by much. they can power their way out of just about anything.

The other big advantage to a Skylane is you can put four adults in it and their crap, fill the tanks and fly. I don't know another aircraft that will do that. Oh, you can fill the seats and fly the Mooney, but the back seat passengers are either going to be children, midgets, or dogs.

My C will give 140 easy, but I normally fly at 70 to 75% power and get close to that TAS on less than 9 GPH. I actually get right at 8.5 regularly, but I now plan 9 to give myself some safety factor. She gives a lot of speed for the fuel burn. She actually goes farther on a gallon of Avgas than my Cessna 140.
 
130knots at fairly economical settings is easy in most 182s.

SImilar here.

Did a 670 nm round trip earlier this month with a friend in his 2011 G1000 equipped 182. 230 hp IO-540 Lycoming, launched from 4000 ft runway and did the trip at 14,500 ASL, burned 11.5 gallons per hour all in at between 130 and 135 kts TAS.

Note, this is a late model 182, and they seem quite heavy (empty weight) compared to the older ones, which should perform better one would expect. This one only has a useful load of about 1065 lbs, which seems a bit low imo for a 230 hp plane.
 
Note, this is a late model 182, and they seem quite heavy (empty weight) compared to the older ones, which should perform better one would expect. This one only has a useful load of about 1065 lbs, which seems a bit low imo for a 230 hp plane.

I agree. Mine is 1300lbs, as are most Dakotas.
 
I plan for 130 in the 182. M20E should be at least 150?
 
Yep, my 1962 C-182 will do 125 kts at 65% power. Mine is a little out of rig too.
 
My 182A is a 125 knot airplane. I'm amazed at what some pilots claim their airplane will do for TAS. It doesn't matter if it's a Mooney, 182, or Bonanza...everyone gets way more airspeed than I've ever seen.

The same is true on MPG on every truck, car, & motorcycle I've owned. I must be a crappy driver & pilot.
 
My 182A is a 125 knot airplane. I'm amazed at what some pilots claim their airplane will do for TAS. It doesn't matter if it's a Mooney, 182, or Bonanza...everyone gets way more airspeed than I've ever seen.

The same is true on MPG on every truck, car, & motorcycle I've owned. I must be a crappy driver & pilot.

I usually tap the glass on the front of the airspeed indicator with my finger. It seems to reliably add five knots to close the gap.

And when it doesn't, well, it just makes me feel better. ;)
 
The other big advantage to a Skylane is you can put four adults in it and their crap, fill the tanks and fly. I don't know another aircraft that will do that. Oh, you can fill the seats and fly the Mooney, but the back seat passengers are either going to be children, midgets, or dogs.

A wonderful story about the 182, but not true if you want to keep it in the allowable W&B range. Our club's 182P (with the Q engine) and long range tanks is limited to around 654 pounds payload with full tanks. Your seats had better be filled with people who weigh a lot less than me.

Spot on with my 182P and I burn 12-12.5 GPH

Sounds about the same as for the club's 182P, as well.
 
My 182A is a 125 knot airplane. I'm amazed at what some pilots claim their airplane will do for TAS. It doesn't matter if it's a Mooney, 182, or Bonanza...everyone gets way more airspeed than I've ever seen.


Yup. I don't pay attention to outlier claims on here.
 
For a Cessna 182P: On a long dual cross leg for my PPL (where you plan and track everything) I flew 22 squared at 4500msl on a near zero wind day. Actual ground speed by Checkpoints and tablet GPS cross check was 147mph in cruise for over 1hr. Total fuel burn rate from engine start at departure to shutdown at destination was 12.3gph...based on stopwatch (not tach). That was for 2 guys (450lbs), full tanks and 40lbs of stuff in the baggage compartment. Weve seen similar results when our family of three flies and about 110lbs of baggage, tools, etc. In neither case was the plane anywhere near W&B limits. Im sure the fuel burn will get worse when loaded full. So I guess that is pretty close to 130kts and that is at ~65% power (from POH). I'm thinking 135kts is doable but 140kts seems to be a stretch (from POH) and your probably be up closer to 14gph.

The fuel burn, air speed and aerial shots of the Mooney...envy :)

The 182 is a hauler, roomy and climbs like a mofo.
 
My 182A is a 125 knot airplane. I'm amazed at what some pilots claim their airplane will do for TAS. It doesn't matter if it's a Mooney, 182, or Bonanza...everyone gets way more airspeed than I've ever seen.

The same is true on MPG on every truck, car, & motorcycle I've owned. I must be a crappy driver & pilot.

Yup, that's called IAS, Internet Air Speed.
 
A wonderful story about the 182, but not true if you want to keep it in the allowable W&B range. Our club's 182P (with the Q engine) and long range tanks is limited to around 654 pounds payload with full tanks. Your seats had better be filled with people who weigh a lot less than me.

One of my pals used to routinely fill the seats in his Skylane with normal size people (not huge, to be certain) and their stuff, couples usually, and fly to Florida. He's actually the one who told me that, though I've heard it repeated. Long range tanks are nice, they are the mod that makes your airplane the fastest because you don't need that fuel stop. But they have their drawbacks. All that said, if I can ever come up with the money I'll happily get them on my Mooney. Not like I need to worry about filling the seats, what there is of them.
 
In an older Skylane with 1200+ lb useful load that's doable - 4 x 190 = 760, plus 65 gallons fuel = 1150 payload plus a bit for baggage.

But the loaded up new ones are short on useful load and seem to be 3 adult or 2 + 2 airplane's now.

This point was made years ago when I was comparing the 980 lb useful load in my 1963 Cherokee 160 against one of our flying club's much newer Warriors. The Warrior had the semi-tapered wing and a 200 lb higher gross weight, but the empty weight had ballooned leaving it with almost 200 lb less useful load than mine.
 
Last edited:
The funniest thing is the new Mooneys with the big Continentals out front don't carry any more than my 55 year old C with a Lycosoar 360.
 
The loss of useful load as planes have gotten newer is frustrating. Understandable as people seem to always want more stuff standard, be it on their car/ truck/van or airplane.

Take a look at a later model 172. Useful load of only 800 lbs is shameful in a 4 seat airplane. A newer Archer with A/C is just as bad.
 
In an older Skylane with 1200+ lb useful load that's doable - 4 x 190 = 760, plus 65 gallons fuel = 1150 payload plus a bit for baggage.

But the loaded up new ones are short on useful load and seem to be 3 adult or 2 + 2 airplane's now.
Are the restart 182s still 92 gallons? I'm right at 760lbs useful with full tanks.
 
Are the restart 182s still 92 gallons? I'm right at 760lbs useful with full tanks.

Yes, 92 gallons total, 87 usable according to the POH.

This one is a 182T, which is NOT a turbo. 230 hp NA Lycoming IO-540. Nice airplane but it has just over 500 lbs payload remaining with full tanks. And I'm 6'4" and weigh 235 lbs. I think the Aztec has spoiled me. :)

But to be fair, it has really nicely upholstered and comfortable leather seats, seat belt air bags, the dual screen G1000 panel and so forth, all of which adds weight.
 
Last edited:
One more data point on the 182P. While we were breaking in the top end we cruised at close to 140kts TAS. Wow, did it drink low lead. Each flight was over 14gph and I think a couple were closer to 15gph. For those fuel burns there must be several other options that would also haul that much...and faster. A Centurion (mid 70's) seems like a great, fast load hauler and miles/gallon might be on par with a 182 given how damn fast it can fly.
 
My M20-C walks away from every 182 I've flown near enough to tell. An M20-E will walk away from me a little faster. The few times I've messed with the back screens of the G430W, it reports TAS ~147 knots. In the sweet spot of 8000-10,000 msl, I indicate ~145 mph. Fuel burn is pretty steady at 9 gph; I've flown 4:40 twice, and put in 41-42 gal, backing up the Performance Charts that show ~5:00 endurance plus IFR reserves.

Flown LOP, the E will match or slightly exceed my speed on ~1gph less. Both planes have the same original fuel capacity. My full fuel useful is 669 lb.

Happy shopping!
 
Thanks everyone. I appreciate all the info you shared and the consistently helpful, positive tone.
 
Thanks everyone. I appreciate all the info you shared and the consistently helpful, positive tone.

LOW WINGS ARE FOR SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(sorry, I just couldn't help myself, people were being too nice)
 
Thanks everyone. I appreciate all the info you shared and the consistently helpful, positive tone.
What we do here G-man. By the way, that Stratus has been working like a champ ever since I figured out how to use it. He who shall not be named was actually and surprisingly helpful.
 
... and the consistently helpful, positive tone.

You must have accidentally posted this on the wrong board. Either that, or we are starting to slip up.
And btw, real airplane's have the wing on the bottom. And no construction bracing to hold it on either.
Just sayin' ;)
 
I thought the construction bracing struts on high wing airplanes were to counteract the normal tendency for the wing to go on the bottom? Don't they mostly keep the airplane from flipping over? :)
 
Back
Top