Cessna 182RG/Mooney 201J

[coloradobluesky]

When you are talking speed, you have to specify if its incated mph, knots or Knots True.

Secondly, you have to specify what fuel burn.

Mooneys are faster than 182s, even retract ones. The turbo 182s are fast up high, but I suspect a turbo Mooney is similarly faster. Just look at them. They are sleeker

But a 182 is more comfortable for bigger guys. Also, looking at the ground type fliers like them. Moneys are better for sky view and you get a good look at the ground when you turn. The back seat of the non stretched Mooneys are small and the front seats are very close to the floor. Ive flown both and I didnt think a Mooney handled all that "special" Seemed about like any other low wing of that speed and size. But they do sip gas...

I flew a Mooney M20C, 1968 and it was 5 knots faster than the 182 straight leg of the same vintage I flew. And the 182 used more gasoline. The Mooney used 8gph and the 182 used 13 or so. At the same fuel burn the Mooney is going to be 12 knots faster? Im not really all that positive on that. The Mooneys a little faster and burns less fuel because its smaller. Especially vertically smaller.

 

[Jim Rosenow]

We make at least book figures every flight in our '86 182RG. It's also IMHO larger inside than anything 4-place mentioned in this thread. I'm 6'-4 / 240 and my wife is also a 6-footer, so we actually sat in all of them (except some of the Mooney variants) 2 years ago, while looking to upgrade from the 172. Also, no gear issues here.

Jim

 

[coloradobluesky]

The book I looked at said a Mooney M20C was 158 knots true at 75% power
Cessna 182RG 155 true at 75% power (and it has more power, bigger engine, more fuel burn of course) These are optimistic high fuel burn numbers. Most dont run them that hard.

So if you are willing to pay for the fuel you can probably almost keep up.

 

[PeeGee]

I find it interesting everyone is using the 180hp m20c to compare, especially when he specifically mentioned he's looking at the 200hp and much more aerodynamic 201j. They're completely different ships.
Also the back seat difference is significant between the short body c and mid body j

 

[Aaronk25]

Sorry the J model mooney has several more inches leg room in back than C model. But in my J, got (powerflow exhaust) if I wanna run max cruise at 8-9000 I can turn 165kts on 10.9gph.....so there is some speed there.

182 is a good plane, just not nearly as efficient.

When I flew from New Orleans direct Cozumel MX, it used 34 gallons. That's what I love about a mooney and for me it works.

If you got rough fields to land at the 182 is your bird....

 

[MooneyDriver78]

Yea, the Mooney will rattle your teeth even on rough hard runways, and if you drop into a pothole you risk striking the prop, so if it's raining,snowing and you can't see the taxiway, you need to be super careful.

 

[Gsxrpilot]

I find it interesting everyone is using the 180hp m20c to compare, especially when he specifically mentioned he's looking at the 200hp and much more aerodynamic 201j. They're completely different ships.
Also the back seat difference is significant between the short body c and mid body j

I was only speaking of the M20C because that's what I own and fly. I've never flown a J, so can only speak to the C.

 

[Aaronk25]

I was only speaking of the M20C because that's what I own and fly. I've never flown a J, so can only speak to the C.

Sure slightly different systems but as you would probably guess just a little faster and little more room in the back...besides that not all that exciting....

 

[MooneyDriver78]

Sure slightly different systems but as you would probably guess just a little faster and little more room in the back...besides that not all that exciting....

J has fuel injection, electric flaps & gear, larger instrument panel with standard 6-pack layout, extra fuel capacity, and is consider the start of the modern Mooney, F and previous are considered vintage. But
Js are more expensive, range from 60-160K, and were built from 77-96.

 

[Marky_24]

I've had it in my mind that a 201J was the plane for me. Despite having 4 kids, a six seater just didn't make sense for the rare occasion when the whole family would fly. I liked the speed (important to me), fuel burn and acquisition cost, wasn't thrilled about the cabin space/layout or load capability. Figured it was only a matter of time before purchasing one however a buddy of mine recently pointed out that 182RG would be a great alternative. Sure enough, it's as fast as a 201J with better room and load capability and cheaper/easier maintenance. Negatives, more fuel burn and a little more in acquisition cost (I think?). Right now the RG seems like a no brainer over a 201J because I think you recoup the fuel cost with the reduced maintenance costs. Am I missing something? Who out there has flown both aircraft or at least the 182RG? Some of the blanks I need to fill in is IFR stability and general handling characteristics plus any other important operating factors I may be unaware of?

Thanks in advance and please, lets not make this a Mooney-Cessna war, the 201J is a great aircraft, just think the 182RG might be better for me.

Having owned both a 182,straight leg,now a 201 I'll give you my take on it.

Not sure where you got the idea of where a 182rg would be cheaper to maintain, but so far my 201 is cheaper than my 182, now add in that rube goldberg machine that is the Cessna retracting gear and I'm certain it will cost more.

Not sure where or how you plan to fly it but the 201 handles higher DA at gross better than the 182.

Side to side room I find the Mooney to be better and also leg room. The 182 wins the rear seat comfort level.I do miss having 2 doors.

As pointed out before you will need more fuel to complete the same trip in a 182 than the Mooney. My Mooney has 980 lbs useful and my 182 had 990, I know the RG has a bit more than that.

The 201 is a must better plane to actually fly, the controls are push rods instead of cables and pullys. The 182 flies a bit like a wet sponge compared to the 201. The 201 is a far better IFR platform it rock solid.

I think the Mooney is a better plane as far as safety, single spar from tip to tip, the wing is very srtong.
also the cockpit is surrounded by a steel roll cage.

Major down sides to the Mooney are the wet wing fuel tanks that can be prone to leaks and need to be resealed and the landing gear pucks are kind of expensive to replace. But the landing gear system is very simple and reliable.

I would run WB on a few trips on both planes and see how much more fuel you will use, as far as time between the two it will be negligible, but remember the fuel cost delta will get bigger when fuel starts to go up again.

http://www.mooneyland.com/why-mooney/

 

[Tx_Flyboy]

Sorry the J model mooney has several more inches leg room in back than C model. But in my J, got (powerflow exhaust) if I wanna run max cruise at 8-9000 I can turn 165kts on 10.9gph.....so there is some speed there.

182 is a good plane, just not nearly as efficient.

When I flew from New Orleans direct Cozumel MX, it used 34 gallons. That's what I love about a mooney and for me it works.

If you got rough fields to land at the 182 is your bird....

Tell us a bit about this flight.

How is it possible to only use 34 gallons? what was the distance, speed & fuel burn?

 

[PeeGee]

Tell us a bit about this flight.

How is it possible to only use 34 gallons? what was the distance, speed & fuel burn?

I can't speak for him but I just planned the route in my plane, a M20K/231. 596NM plans at 3+20 today with a pretty hefty crosswind.

I plan 14GPH (probably closer to 13 but my fuel flow reads a touch high so I just go with the higher) in cruise at 190 true @ FL180, so I can't touch his numbers in mine, closer to 50 gallons. What a fun trip! I would love to hear more about it.

 

[PeeGee]

Having owned both a 182,straight leg,now a 201 I'll give you my take on it.



Side to side room I find the Mooney to be better and also leg room. The 182 wins the rear seat comfort level.I do miss having 2 doors.

having had a share in a 182P and now a mooney231 I couldn't disagree with this more, I still instruct a gentleman in my old 182 occasionally and it's MUCH roomier and I notice it every time I get back in it.

Again I LOVE our mooney but I don't think it's right for this guy and his family. Just my opinion.

 

[Marky_24]

The Mooney measures 1.5" wider, I think people naturally set away from the sides on a Mooney due to the sloping of the top of the cabin and that makes it feel smaller.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

Tell us a bit about this flight.



How is it possible to only use 34 gallons? what was the distance, speed & fuel burn?

My J did a 675nm Louisiana to south Florida, 9500', 7.6gph, LOP, WOT, 5:20, some X-wind. It's a little high for a NA engine, HP was 55%, 42.6 gals.
Here is another:

 

[Perezhr]

Have flown both and what this boils down is a simple comparison between cabin space vs speed/economy. If you will be flying with your family often then the 182 will be a more comfortable airplane. The J cabin is not bad but the rear seat room will not be as good as the 182. The 182 feels bigger all around. When it comes to speed and fuel economy there is simply no comparison. The J is faster and will burn less fuel. The J landing gear is extremely reliable and cheap to maintain so overall I'm pretty sure the maintenance cost will be lower also. No matter which airplane you get you will love it. Both are great. When I still had kids living at home the 182 was my go to airplane. Now it's just me and the wife and the Mooney fits my needs better because speed/economy is more important specially as I'm nearing retirement.

 

[PeeGee]

The Mooney measures 1.5" wider, I think people naturally set away from the sides on a Mooney due to the sloping of the top of the cabin and that makes it feel smaller.

Where do you see that? I'm finding the m20 at 43.5 and the 182 at 44" from 1965 and on. Numbers aside, it doesn't matter if it still feels more cramped.

 

[Pilawt]

The Mooney measures 1.5" wider, I think people naturally set away from the sides on a Mooney due to the sloping of the top of the cabin and that makes it feel smaller.

Take 'em with a grain or three of salt, but these comparison tables are from 1978 M20C and M20J sales brochures:

And yes, the upper half of the Mooney fuselage is rounded, so the cabin width at eye level is less than it is at the elbows:

 

[Aaronk25]

Got married down there and we left MN flew non stop to Knew (New Orleans) put in 50 gallons. Then played for a few days at Mardi Gras then launched with wedding dress, raft and all the gear direct to Cozumel (to clear customs) then on to playa del Carmen. This was in February 2014. Playa is now closed.

Anyhow, it was 595nm from New Orleans to Cozumel. Now we flew high with o2 the entire way in order to go IFR. We were required to fly at FL190, to maintain vhf for the crossing. We still needed to have the heavy iron above relay our position at about the 1/2 way point.

Was in the air a little over 4 hours. We weighed 2,900lbs on take of so we're using 1,120lbs. We climbed directly up to FL190. Did I ever say "MOONEYS ROCK". Yes this is a naturally aspirated bird. Cruised at 2700rpm 30 rop and about 15ish inches of mp. At 145kts true burning mind 7ish gph.

In theory we could have flown to Cozumel and turned around and made it back to New Orleans.

I'm trying to upload pics but tapatalk isn't allowing it.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Here's the TR182 (TURBO retract 182) performance charts... these have been interpolated for every VFR/IFR cruise altitude and power setting, not just the even altitudes and odd RPM/MP settings.

 

[petrolero]

Here's the TR182 (TURBO retract 182) performance charts... these have been interpolated for every VFR/IFR cruise altitude and power setting, not just the even altitudes and odd RPM/MP settings.

Mine gets pretty much exactly book performance at 24 squared at 12k feet every single time. 161 to 163 KTAS when I bother to calculate TAS. (The Cirrus guys go "calculate?")

I have had to back it off a touch, or fly with the somewhat draggy cowl flaps open when I go up high in order to keep the oil temps off the red line (this is a thing with the TR182). CHTs are usually just fine in the 350 range (no engine monitor yet).

My typical 24" x 2300 gets me about 166 to 167 KTAS at FL190 with cowl flaps open. At that altitude I'm seeing 120 to 125 KIAS so it's like being in a continuous shallow climb. Even with an OAT of 24 F in the summer it wants to red line the oil temp unless I open the flaps - so I do. Nbd.

Flying a 182 in the flight levels feels like trespassing.

 

[petrolero]

I don't know which airplane is faster (I've always assumed the Mooney since it's got that skinny cabin and knife-like wing section) but I love love my TR182. It is roomy and hauls my family (or **** tons of cargo) in comfort, at good speed, with great range and full fuel and plenty of luggage. It is also a piece of cake to land with a low stall speed.

I could trade some of that for a little less stability and a bit more speed (or fuel efficiency or both), and perhaps one day I will, but for now this fits my mission criteria perfectly.

 

[PeeGee]

I don't know which airplane is faster (I've always assumed the Mooney since it's got that skinny cabin and knife-like wing section)

our 231 with intercooler and black magic wastegate is about 190 true at FL180 28"/2500RPM, 135kts IAS. About 13-13.5GPH. 14 indicated (reads .5-1gph high) keeps the TIT low 1500s F and CHT's in the 380s

 

[petrolero]

our 231 with intercooler and black magic wastegate is about 190 true at FL180 28"/2500RPM, 135kts IAS. About 13-13.5GPH. 14 indicated (reads .5-1gph high) keeps the TIT low 1500s F and CHT's in the 380s

Great. Now I want a 231.

 

[PeeGee]

Great. Now I want a 231.

not if you have a family you don't

I plan my fuel pretty conservatively because the burn in climb will make you cry

 

[Bonchie]

Here's the TR182 (TURBO retract 182) performance charts... these have been interpolated for every VFR/IFR cruise altitude and power setting, not just the even altitudes and odd RPM/MP settings.

Given his concerns on maintenance, I doubt the Turbo version is relevant for him.

 

[petrolero]

Here's the TR182 (TURBO retract 182) performance charts... these have been interpolated for every VFR/IFR cruise altitude and power setting, not just the even altitudes and odd RPM/MP settings.

Did you do the interpolation? That's a nice table. Duly saved! Thanks.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Did you do the interpolation? That's a nice table. Duly saved! Thanks.

You're welcome! No, got it off one of the Cessna pilot forums (I forget which one). It's saved in the iBooks app on my iPad so I can quickly reference it in flight or during flight planning.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Given his concerns on maintenance, I doubt the Turbo version is relevant for him.

I haven't noticed any increase in maintenance cost due to having the turbo, but I do understand your point--if and when the turbo needs maintenance, it will add some expense one would otherwise not have. This airplane is turbo NORMALIZED, not turbocharged, so the engine isn't being subjected to a lot of additional stress--I can just maintain 25" up to FL200 (and beyond, theoretically... that limit on the TR182 was a marketing thing so people would buy the T210).

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

I haven't noticed any increase in maintenance cost due to having the turbo, but I do understand your point--if and when the turbo needs maintenance, it will add some expense one would otherwise not have. This airplane is turbo NORMALIZED, not turbocharged, so the engine isn't being subjected to a lot of additional stress--I can just maintain 25" up to FL200 (and beyond, theoretically... that limit on the TR182 was a marketing thing so people would buy the T210).

turbo owner here......it doesn't always "cost" more.....but, when something isn't working right things get complicated quicker and require more diagnostics time.

More mechanism = more complexity = more expensive to fix.

Now, having said that.....I love my turbo and probably won't own another non-turbo aircraft again. The ability to climb like a home sick angel to the flight levels is not comparable.....

 

[rbridges]

turbo owner here......it doesn't always "cost" more.....but, when something isn't working right things get complicated quicker and require more diagnostics time.

More mechanism = more complexity = more expensive to fix.

Now, having said that.....I love my turbo and probably won't own another non-turbo aircraft again. The ability to climb like a home sick angel to the flight levels is not comparable.....

are top overhauls a little more frequent with turbos or is that an old wives tale?

 

[TangoWhiskey]

are top overhauls a little more frequent with turbos or is that an old wives tale?

Depends on the engine and TC system. On the TR182's with their low compression (8.5:1) O-540 engine and turbo NORMALIZED, it's not uncommon for these to go all the way to their 2000 hour TBO when the pilot manages temps properly.

 

[Clark1961]

are top overhauls a little more frequent with turbos or is that an old wives tale?

It depends on how the engine is operated. Run the thing at 80% power in cruise and yup, yer gonna be buying cylinders...

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

are top overhauls a little more frequent with turbos or is that an old wives tale?

my understanding is....keep the CHTs under 380F....and it doesn't matter what HP you run.

 

[Henning]

What's the parts situation on the gear now? Did that get straightened out? I recall quite a few AOG R-182s because they couldn't get some gear part there's a problem with on them. I would look into this matter before delving into one. The TR-182 is another option that buys you some more TAS in the 10k-16k range. IIRC it trues over 165 at 12,500.

 

[Auburn2002]

Got married down there and we left MN flew non stop to Knew (New Orleans) put in 50 gallons. Then played for a few days at Mardi Gras then launched with wedding dress, raft and all the gear direct to Cozumel (to clear customs) then on to playa del Carmen. This was in February 2014. Playa is now closed.

Anyhow, it was 595nm from New Orleans to Cozumel. Now we flew high with o2 the entire way in order to go IFR. We were required to fly at FL190, to maintain vhf for the crossing. We still needed to have the heavy iron above relay our position at about the 1/2 way point.

Was in the air a little over 4 hours. We weighed 2,900lbs on take of so we're using 1,120lbs. We climbed directly up to FL190. Did I ever say "MOONEYS ROCK". Yes this is a naturally aspirated bird. Cruised at 2700rpm 30 rop and about 15ish inches of mp. At 145kts true burning mind 7ish gph.

In theory we could have flown to Cozumel and turned around and made it back to New Orleans.

I'm trying to upload pics but tapatalk isn't allowing it.

Trying not to sidetrack the thread, but that sounds freaking awesome. Would love to see the pics if you can get them up (in this thread or elsewhere).

 

[petrolero]

are top overhauls a little more frequent with turbos or is that an old wives tale?

Not with turbonormalized airplanes. Turbonormalized airplanes simply allow the pilot to maintain sea level pressure at any altitude up to the certified limit (for the TR182 that's FL200). And the top of the green arc for cruise is still 25" just like other 182s. You can still go up to 31" if you need to do a max performance climb but you'll heat it up if you do so you have to watch it.

Turbocharged or boosted engines enable the pilot to boost the manifold pressure to pressures well above nominal sea level pressure (31" Hg) - some go way up there to 38" or 41" or more.

I was talking to the IA during my annual and he had a turbocharged (pressurized & booted ) 210 opened up right behind me.

He was doing a top on it (I believe he said it was the TSIO-520) because, his words, "those and <he named another boosted type that I forget> never make it to TBO because they run too hot". This particular example was an airplane that saw 300 hours per year, and not a rental - the owner used it for biz trips.

Take that as this particular IA's experience but he is a very experienced mechanic.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

Since the title specify the J, a NA engine, there is a STC that allows you to add TN to it, but at a price of $30 AMUs, I don't think it makes sense and if requiring turbo, would just look at a 231.

 

[Henning]

are top overhauls a little more frequent with turbos or is that an old wives tale?

You have to differentiate which turbo system in use, Turbo Normalized where the redline MP pressure is limited typically to SL atmospheric +2" to make up for the back pressure, say a 230hp engine at 28" will require 30" to make the same power with the waste gate closed. Turbo Supercharged is where you add significant charge pressure to the cylinder to make rated horsepower even at sea level. These engines typically carry a lower compression ratio piston in comparison to an NA or TN engine. The TS engines when run hard ROP will see mid life top ends. If you run them LOP you can much better service life including never touching a jug to TBO and beyond.

For aircraft I prefer a TN set up because with the higher compression pistons, I can get more work out of my fuel, and with my lower MP pressure requirements, can carry power to even higher altitudes than with the TS engine.

 

[PeeGee]

Since the title specify the J, a NA engine, there is a STC that allows you to add TN to it, but at a price of $30 AMUs, I don't think it makes sense and if requiring turbo, would just look at a 231.

every now and then one comes along used. There's a guy on MF with a used rayjay for like 9k but I don't know what it fits, maybe all, I'm totally unfamiliar.