I have a 1984 Mooney M20K 231 for sale. 2483 TTSN, 1415 SFRM. Dual Garmin
430s.

Please see http://www.madness.net/n57568 for specifications and tons of
pictures, and email me directly with any questions. Thanks for looking!

Vince

("Vince" wrote)
>I have a 1984 Mooney M20K 231 for sale. 2483 TTSN, 1415 SFRM. Dual Garmin
>430s.
>
> Please see http://www.madness.net/n57568 for specifications and tons of
> pictures, and email me directly with any questions. Thanks for looking!


How long have you owned it?

What are some specs on a 1984 Mooney M20K?
Speed in cruise, Fuel burn, Useful load, etc. Curious.

Any more 'insider' info would be fun. Thanks.

BTW, what you asking for it? :-)


Montblack

Vince,
How did you find the 3 bladed prop to perform. Many in the Mooney
community seem to believe the 3 blade prop reduces cruise speed by
about 5 knots.

Montblack,
The reason its called a 231 is because it is suppose to cruise at
231mph (I believe that is wide open throttle though).
-Robert Mooney owner

On 15 Feb 2006 22:41:57 -0800, "Robert M. Gary" >
wrote:

>Montblack,
>The reason its called a 231 is because it is suppose to cruise at
>231mph (I believe that is wide open throttle though).
>-Robert Mooney owner

The late model Mooneys (201, 231, 252) are definitely named by their
top speed in mph.

Here is a link to the performance section of the 231 POH.
http://lists.aviating.com/mooney/perf/POH231/SpeedPowerAltitude.pdf

It appears that 231mph is achievable at approx 40" & 2700RPM, which
the turbo'd engine can achieve at 16k through 20k pressure altitude.

I doubt anyone would be willing to run the engine that hard as it is
very close to 100% power.

75% @ 20k ~= 220mph
75% @ 24k ~= 229mph

"Nathan Young" > wrote in message
...
> On 15 Feb 2006 22:41:57 -0800, "Robert M. Gary" >
> wrote:
>
>>Montblack,
>>The reason its called a 231 is because it is suppose to cruise at
>>231mph (I believe that is wide open throttle though).
>>-Robert Mooney owner
>
> The late model Mooneys (201, 231, 252) are definitely named by their
> top speed in mph.
>
> Here is a link to the performance section of the 231 POH.
> http://lists.aviating.com/mooney/perf/POH231/SpeedPowerAltitude.pdf
>
> It appears that 231mph is achievable at approx 40" & 2700RPM, which
> the turbo'd engine can achieve at 16k through 20k pressure altitude.
>
> I doubt anyone would be willing to run the engine that hard as it is
> very close to 100% power.
>
> 75% @ 20k ~= 220mph
> 75% @ 24k ~= 229mph
>
>
Let's see: % of HP = GPH * 14.9, so figure what the power level.

It doesn't so much matter where the throttle is set (WOT works best), it's
the RPM (seondary) and the fuel flow (mixture) which is primary.

For example, in a 310HP engine, burning 14.5gph, you would be at 70% power.

Matt B.

> Supposedly a myth.

Maybe. However, before I became a Mooney owner my bird was an Arrow
with a 3 blade prop. In that configuration, it absolutely did slow it
down quite a bit. I know that Top Gun Aviation (a Mooney Service
Center) just purchased one of the "new designed" 3 blades for their
shop Mooney. They want to determine what the cost in speed may be. The
manufactor claims that the new designs aren't slower, but we'll see.

-Robert

"Matt Barrow" wrote:


>> How did you find the 3 bladed prop to perform. Many in the Mooney
>> community seem to believe the 3 blade prop reduces cruise speed by
>> about 5 knots.
>
> Supposedly a myth.
Members of Cardinal Flyers have reported cruise speed losses after conversion
to 3-blades. Some have reported ROC improvements and less noise. The
consensus runs against the conversion being worth it.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

Is this correct?

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
> Let's see: % of HP = GPH * 14.9, so figure what the power level.
>
> It doesn't so much matter where the throttle is set (WOT works best), it's
> the RPM (seondary) and the fuel flow (mixture) which is primary.
>
> For example, in a 310HP engine, burning 14.5gph, you would be at 70%
> power.
>
> Matt B.
>

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" wrote:
>
>
>>> How did you find the 3 bladed prop to perform. Many in the Mooney
>>> community seem to believe the 3 blade prop reduces cruise speed by
>>> about 5 knots.
>>
>> Supposedly a myth.
> Members of Cardinal Flyers have reported cruise speed losses after
> conversion to 3-blades. Some have reported ROC improvements and less
> noise. The consensus runs against the conversion being worth it.

Not only (far) less noise, but significantly decreased vibration due to
different airflow pulses
against the airframe.

It is also suggested that the miniscule speed loss (1-2%) can be adjusted
out by running higher RPM's that a two blade prop would turn into noise and
vibration.

Wrong!


Lean of peak horsepower =14.9 x fuel flow

Lean of peak ONLY and it's not % but straight hp

Karl
"Curator" N185KG

"karl gruber" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Wrong!
>
>
> Lean of peak horsepower =14.9 x fuel flow
>
> Lean of peak ONLY and it's not % but straight hp
What Temp LOP?

There's a wide berth.

And what's you calculation?

> How did you find the 3 bladed prop to perform. Many in the Mooney
> community seem to believe the 3 blade prop reduces cruise speed by
> about 5 knots.

I believe that's only for the four cylinder models. The six cylinder
ones (as is Vince's 231) do not suffer any loss of cruise speed.
---
Ken Reed
N9124X

"Doug" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> You genearlly need 300 horse to see an improvement in performance with
> a 3 blade prop.
>
Really?

"Ken Reed" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>> How did you find the 3 bladed prop to perform. Many in the Mooney
>> community seem to believe the 3 blade prop reduces cruise speed by
>> about 5 knots.
>
> I believe that's only for the four cylinder models. The six cylinder ones
> (as is Vince's 231) do not suffer any loss of cruise speed.

AIUI, the earlier three blade props were not optimal for higher
HP/displacement engines...not like he current stable.

Also, you could run higher RPMs with a three blade that, with a two blade
prop, would could unsuitable noise and vibration.

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" wrote:
>
>
>>> How did you find the 3 bladed prop to perform. Many in the Mooney
>>> community seem to believe the 3 blade prop reduces cruise speed by
>>> about 5 knots.
>>
>> Supposedly a myth.
> Members of Cardinal Flyers have reported cruise speed losses after
> conversion to 3-blades. Some have reported ROC improvements and less
> noise. The consensus runs against the conversion being worth it.
>
Since "consensus" is a political term, rather than a scientific term, I'd be
more impressed by real test data rather than subjective opinions :~)

If you're too ashamed to post asking price and location, don't even
bother posting.



Vince wrote:

> I have a 1984 Mooney M20K 231 for sale. 2483 TTSN, 1415 SFRM. Dual Garmin
> 430s.
>
> Please see http://www.madness.net/n57568 for specifications and tons of
> pictures, and email me directly with any questions. Thanks for looking!
>
> Vince

One main advantage of more blades is that you can use more power for
the same prop diameter and construction. Each blade handles a portion
of the total thrust-power. In a two blade there is about 0.5/0.333 - 1
== 50% more stress per blade due to thrust - for same engine power.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: abripl ]
> Posted At: Friday, February 24, 2006 6:09 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.owning
> Conversation: 1984 Mooney M20K 231 for sale
> Subject: Re: 1984 Mooney M20K 231 for sale
>
> One main advantage of more blades is that you can use more power for
> the same prop diameter and construction. Each blade handles a portion
> of the total thrust-power. In a two blade there is about 0.5/0.333 - 1
> == 50% more stress per blade due to thrust - for same engine power.
[Jim Carter]
Isn't one feature of the 3 blade prop a smaller diameter that provides
better ground clearance?

And are you really using more power? Isn't number of blades related to
torque applied to the crankshaft? The engine doesn't change power output
based on the number of blades its swinging does it?

I know that smaller diameters tend to mean lower tip velocity and less
noise for the same amount of torque, but I've never heard more blades
means more power used before. But then, I could be wrong...it wouldn't
be the first time and it probably won't be the last.

Asking price is $149k, located at ISP, NY. Offers of course are welcome.

I haven't had any issues with cruise speed being lower than I expect.
Then again, I never owned the plane with a 2 bladed prop, but I cruise
as fast as my friend's 231 with a 2 bladed prop at the same MP.

I haven't had any issues with cruise speed being lower than I expect.
Then again, I never owned the plane with a 2 bladed prop, but I cruise
as fast as my friend's 231 with a 2 bladed prop at the same MP.

> How long have you owned it?

5 years (bought it 11/00)

> What are some specs on a 1984 Mooney M20K?
> Speed in cruise, Fuel burn, Useful load, etc. Curious.

I flight plan for 165. Realistically achieve it on 95% of all flights.
This is at 70% power. Fuel burn is 12.5 ROP, 9.5 LOP. Useful load is
943 lbs.

Asking $149,000, negotiable.

Not ashamed at all:

Full information about the aircraft and tons of pictures are available
at http://www.madness.net/n57568/ (make sure to click through to the
additional pictures, there are 50 of them). My asking price is
$149,000, with all ADs complied with and airworthy items fixed (if
any), delivered, if you want, to your location (negotiable) from mine,
which is ISP, in NY.

It has had over $40,000 in avionics put in since I've owned it, and has
had excellent maintenance (overhauled propeller, overhauled oxygen
system, overhauled HSI, overhauled AI, overhauled boost pump,
calibrated autopilot, new landing gear shock disks and many other new
or overhauled items). Last annual was in TX at Don Maxwell Aviation,
one of the best Mooney shops around.

Any questions after viewing the photos and specs should be directed to
me by email please. The aircraft's useful load is 943 lbs. It has long
range tanks, so if you fill the tanks you can fly for nearly 1600nm.

Vince

Any temp. LOP the fuel flow vrs temp is a straight line. ROP it's a
curve.

I can't understand your second question.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG

"karl gruber" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Any temp. LOP the fuel flow vrs temp is a straight line. ROP it's a
> curve.
>
Like this? http://www.avweb.com/newspics/pp18e.jpg

Matt, you said "Let's see: % of HP = GPH * 14.9, so figure what the power
level. "

Deakin says
"Multiplying the fuel flow (18.0 GPH) by 14.9 (the constant for this
engine), we know this is 268 HP, or a whopping 89%."
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182105-1.html

It's HP=GPH*14.9
Not % of HP = GPH * 14.9

And that relationship holds LOP ONLY!

Argue with Deakin, not me.


"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "karl gruber" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Any temp. LOP the fuel flow vrs temp is a straight line. ROP it's a
>> curve.
>>
> Like this? http://www.avweb.com/newspics/pp18e.jpg
>

"kgruber" > wrote in message
...
>
> Matt, you said "Let's see: % of HP = GPH * 14.9, so figure what the power
> level. "
>
> Deakin says
> "Multiplying the fuel flow (18.0 GPH) by 14.9 (the constant for this
> engine), we know this is 268 HP, or a whopping 89%."
> http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182105-1.html
>
> It's HP=GPH*14.9
> Not % of HP = GPH * 14.9
>
> And that relationship holds LOP ONLY!
>
> Argue with Deakin, not me.

268 of 285 = 89%

ETFOOM