M20J or C-177B

Y

Yogi

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jan 20, 2018
Messages
17
Display Name
Display name:
Yogi
Does anyone have experience in both M20J and C-177B and comment on their climb performance at high density altitude? I have a small family of 4 with the total weight of 560lbs including small luggage. With 40 gal of fuel, the total load will be 800 lbs. I live in southwest so the performance at high density altitude is a real concern. I am planning to buy an airplane next year and these 2 aircraft are currently at the top of my list.
 
I have never flown an M20J, but have flown Cardinals in the Southwest (CA/AZ/NM).

A Cardinal is a nice airplane (my favorite Cessna single) but not a great high DA performer at less than gross weight.

If you are looking for an airplane to operate with your family in a high DA environment, I think you can cross it off your list.

For your mission, you need at least a 182
 
coloradobluesky said:
Id say you need a 182, or a 206.
Click to expand...

Why, with the Mooney 201, even with full tanks (64 gallons), you will have 600 lbs left for passengers and cargo?
Personally I would just compare numbers from the POH (I know M20J is available online somewhere) and I assume you’d be able to find a 177 as well.
 
Yes, but its the west. Hot, high, and those kids grow and want to bring more things. An older 182 or 206 is not much more cost.
 
I’m at 759lbs useful with full fuel (92 gal) in my 182. It’s not as fast as most Mooney’s, but I’d feel a lot more comfortable with it in high DAs
 
Fearless Tower said:
I have never flown an M20J, but have flown Cardinals in the Southwest (CA/AZ/NM).

A Cardinal is a nice airplane (my favorite Cessna single) but not a great high DA performer at less than gross weight.

If you are looking for an airplane to operate with your family in a high DA environment, I think you can cross it off your list.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Cardinal's performance is noticeably worse during summer hot spells even in the Northeast. I would go with the Mooney, or something a little larger. A 182 would be a definite candidate.
 
teejayevans said:
Why, with the Mooney 201, even with full tanks (64 gallons), you will have 600 lbs left for passengers and cargo?
Personally I would just compare numbers from the POH (I know M20J is available online somewhere) and I assume you’d be able to find a 177 as well.
Click to expand...

Not all of them. I've seen quite a few with ~900 lbs of useful load; give or take 20 lbs. That puts one closer to 500 lbs with full fuel. Now, no reason to be at full fuel for a 2 hour flight.

As others have said, those kids will grow. And so will the stuff. "We pack light" only goes so far. We pack light, but the kids also brought books and laptops on weekend trips in HS and college to do their homework/papers/projects. It all adds up.

Both of those are nice planes. Of the two you listed I like the M20J IF you can find a light one, i.e. with a high useful load. The 182 suggestions here are very good. A little slower than the M20J, but not a lot, and will haul quite a bit more, plus easy entry with two doors.
 
I agree with the comments above. As much as I like Cardinals, a 180 hp Skyhawk does better in the high country than a 180 hp Cardinal, especially in shorter fields. The M20J cruises nicely in the 12,000-14,000 range, but it's not as well suited for shorter or unimproved strips.

A 182 seems fit for your mission, or even a Cherokee 235 or Dakota, or a R172K Hawk XP (195 hp to 210 hp). If you really want a retractable, consider a Turbo Arrow or Mooney 231/252.
 
Last edited:
Kids will grow, I’d look for something the family can grow into. Nobody seems to ever mention a turbo Lance, so I will.
 
Bill Jennings said:
Kids will grow, I’d look for something the family can grow into. Nobody seems to ever mention a turbo Lance, so I will.
Click to expand...
If you can get over the look....

Seriously, though, when I was growing up, we flew all over the southwest as a family of 4 in a Turbo Lance. Even up to Telluride. It is a great family hauler.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
The answer really depends on who you are. If you are tall folks and/or wide in the beam, your family will outgrow the 201 (though I imagine they'll do likewise in a 177). If you are diminutive in stature and not busting at the seams the Mooney will likely serve you for some time to come.

Mooneys operate easily in the teens, and the 201 is certainly the sweet spot in the lineup. As far as I know it is the fastest way to transport 4 with a Lycoming I030. All things considered I agree with the posters who say the Skylane fits your mission best. The money that buys a 201 will buy a Skyhawk, that that'll get your family out of most anything. It won't keep up with a 201, but it will go places a 201 can't (or more accurately, shouldn't).
 
Thanks guys for your input. My older daughter is already in high school so she probably won't gain more weight. My younger daughter will still grow, but I don't expect the total weight of the family and bags to exceed 600 lbs. I normally rent C-182 or C-172SP for family trips and had no issues at high DA. C-182 is a nice airplane and it's also on my list, but I prefer a normally-aspirated IO-360 for its reliability. According to the M20J POH, I should be able to fly out of a mile-high airport with sufficient climb rate unless it's a mid-day on a hot summer day, but the real world number can be quite different....
 
Pilawt said:
I agree with the comments above. As much as I like Cardinals, a 180 hp Skyhawk does better in the high country than a 180 hp Cardinal, especially in shorter fields. The M20J cruises nicely in the 12,000-14,000 range, but it's not as well suited for shorter or unimproved strips.

A 182 seems fit for your mission, or even a Cherokee 235 or Dakota, or a R172K Hawk XP (195 hp to 210 hp). If you really want a retractable, consider a Turbo Arrow or Mooney 231/252.
Click to expand...
I don't think he necessarily wants a retract - C-177B is a straight leg Cardinal.
 
That's right. I like Cessna for its high wing and 2 doors, but I heard a Cessna with a retract can be a maintenance nightmare. That's why I am considering 177B and not 177RG. M20J is obviously faster than 177B, but 177 is roomier and much easier to get in/out of, especially for the kids in the back. POH says 177B at Max GW can climb at 410fpm at 6000' at 40 degC, but I like to know how realistic the number is.
 
Yogi said:
Thanks guys for your input. My older daughter is already in high school so she probably won't gain more weight. My younger daughter will still grow, but I don't expect the total weight of the family and bags to exceed 600 lbs. I normally rent C-182 or C-172SP for family trips and had no issues at high DA. C-182 is a nice airplane and it's also on my list, but I prefer a normally-aspirated IO-360 for its reliability. According to the M20J POH, I should be able to fly out of a mile-high airport with sufficient climb rate unless it's a mid-day on a hot summer day, but the real world number can be quite different....
Click to expand...

with some planning you should be able to take off in AM before heat sets in. I’ve flown out of Albuquerque in July, it was 80°+, but still in the morning, no problem. The real problem is airports in the valleys, you might have to do a turn in the pattern to climb a bit. I believe 3 blade props climb better, but they cruise slower. Learning how to lean properly helps alot, if you go full rich at 3000+ ft on a hot day....you not going to match POH numbers.
Take a look at the baggage area if the J, it’s something like 2’x3’x3’, that’s not a lot for 3 women, so that might be a factor.
I agree you could be pushing the limits, next trip make a note of the luggage size and weight.
 
Personally, in that environment, I would definitely take the 182.

If easy rear seat access is super important, a Maule can carry a good load and has very easy rear seat access/cargo loading.
Performance wise, not bad, only 4 cylinders to maintain, and good fuel burn. Although, you can opt for the 235 six cylinder.

Concerns might be:
Fabric fuselage, noise?
I've never flown one, so some others with experience might be able to chime in.
I may be way off and it may not be something you're looking for, but wanted to toss it out there.

I believe they come with a choice of 40 or 70 gallon tanks.

Engine, Lycoming O360-C1F
Gross Weight 2500 Lbs.
Empty Weight (Avg)1438 Lbs.
Useful Load (Avg.)1062 Lbs.
Stall Speed (Full flaps / Lt. Weight)40 MPH
Take Off, Ground Roll (Lt. Weight)300 Ft.
Take off at gross over 50' Obstacle 600 Ft.
Rate of climb, Initial (Lt. Weight)1200 FPM
Land at gross over 50' Obstacle 500 Ft.
Service Ceiling 15,000 Ft.
Fuel Consumption (65% Power)(Avg) 9 GPH
Cruise (75% Power / Opt. Alt.)(TAS)145 MPH (126 kts)

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/17004945/1998-maule-mx7-180a
 
I have experience with both. I remember the 177 to be really disappoint in high density altitude situations. I remember one time climbing out of las vegas at gross weight and boy did it struggle to get much past 5000 feet. It was 120something out that day! I say go with the mooney!
 
pilotrick said:
I have experience with both. I remember the 177 to be really disappoint in high density altitude situations. I remember one time climbing out of las vegas at gross weight and boy did it struggle to get much past 5000 feet. It was 120something out that day! I say go with the mooney!
Click to expand...
Was that with a 180hp Cardinal or 150hp?
 
Skyrys62 said:
Personally, in that environment, I would definitely take the 182.

If easy rear seat access is super important, a Maule can carry a good load and has very easy rear seat access/cargo loading.
Performance wise, not bad, only 4 cylinders to maintain, and good fuel burn. Although, you can opt for the 235 six cylinder.

Concerns might be:
Fabric fuselage, noise?
I've never flown one, so some others with experience might be able to chime in.
I may be way off and it may not be something you're looking for, but wanted to toss it out there.

I believe they come with a choice of 40 or 70 gallon tanks.

Engine, Lycoming O360-C1F
Gross Weight 2500 Lbs.
Empty Weight (Avg)1438 Lbs.
Useful Load (Avg.)1062 Lbs.
Stall Speed (Full flaps / Lt. Weight)40 MPH
Take Off, Ground Roll (Lt. Weight)300 Ft.
Take off at gross over 50' Obstacle 600 Ft.
Rate of climb, Initial (Lt. Weight)1200 FPM
Land at gross over 50' Obstacle 500 Ft.
Service Ceiling 15,000 Ft.
Fuel Consumption (65% Power)(Avg) 9 GPH
Cruise (75% Power / Opt. Alt.)(TAS)145 MPH (126 kts)

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/17004945/1998-maule-mx7-180a
Click to expand...
I got my tailwheel endorsement last year with Aeronca Champ and I have a real sweet spot for the little airplane. Maule, on the other hand, somehow does not appeal to me at all. Not sure why. It does have a big rear door which is nice. I heard the insurance can be pretty steep, though.
 
I was out in myn180-hp carbed Mooney today. Had 1000 fpm at 100-110 mph. Took the IA on the post-maintenance flight with full fuel).

Ignore comments about full fuel payload, figure fuel burn for each plane based on one of your common trips. Guaranteed that a 182 will require 60% more fuel than the Mooney J, which should go 4 hours on 40 gals with some left over (mine will go 4:45 on 42 gallons, with 1:15 remaining). A 182 at slower speeds and higher fuel burn won't carry the same load as far . . .

4 hours in a J at 155 KTAS = 4-1/2 hours in a 182. (This is flying the J lean of peak; ROP will go faster but also use more fuel per hour, still less than a 182.) This is why I bought my Mooney, faster than a 182 using less fuel for the trip than a 172.

Fuel is either 4 x 8.5 = 34 gals or 4.5 x 14 = 63 gals. But the 182 will carry bulkier items. The J has standard 64 gal tanks, but can be had with long range tanks up to 100 gals. No idea how much fuel a 182 carries.

Carry on! :cool: (ducking bricks thrown by Cessna fans)
 
Yogi, I can vouch for the fact that even a 177RG, with a 200 hp IO360, has problems with performance at higher density altitudes. Bear in mind that I fly in the Northeast, and it has never been a safety issue, but I begin to notice it even as low as 3500 DA. I can't imagine trying to operate my plane out of places like Denver or Albuquerque during the summer. So a 180 hp 177B is definitely going to have the same problem. The airframe is just not that great a performer. Mooney gets much better performance out of basically the same engine.

(And yeah, I still like Cardinals. I'm just realistic about their strengths and weaknesses.)
 
Hank S said:
I was out in myn180-hp carbed Mooney today. Had 1000 fpm at 100-110 mph. Took the IA on the post-maintenance flight with full fuel).

Ignore comments about full fuel payload, figure fuel burn for each plane based on one of your common trips. Guaranteed that a 182 will require 60% more fuel than the Mooney J, which should go 4 hours on 40 gals with some left over (mine will go 4:45 on 42 gallons, with 1:15 remaining). A 182 at slower speeds and higher fuel burn won't carry the same load as far . . .

4 hours in a J at 155 KTAS = 4-1/2 hours in a 182. (This is flying the J lean of peak; ROP will go faster but also use more fuel per hour, still less than a 182.) This is why I bought my Mooney, faster than a 182 using less fuel for the trip than a 172.

Fuel is either 4 x 8.5 = 34 gals or 4.5 x 14 = 63 gals. But the 182 will carry bulkier items. The J has standard 64 gal tanks, but can be had with long range tanks up to 100 gals. No idea how much fuel a 182 carries.

Carry on! :cool: (ducking bricks thrown by Cessna fans)
Click to expand...
Mine has 92 gallon tanks. Around 6 hours of fuel with reserves at a little over 140ktas. 1311lbs useful and the cabin width is really nice for long flights.
 
ktup-flyer said:
Mine has 92 gallon tanks. Around 6 hours of fuel with reserves at a little over 140ktas. 1311lbs useful and the cabin width is really nice for long flights.
Click to expand...

Hmmm . . . 759 lb useful with full fuel. Your "flying SUV" beat my short body Mooney by 70 lbs . . . But 90 gals will take me 10 hours (not counting a fuel stop!) at 148 KTAS.
 
I have flown a 177B all throughout the SW USA. It's doable, but not optimal, in density altitude situations. As others have mentioned, a 182 sounds like a better option give your requirements.
 
Yogi said:
I got my tailwheel endorsement last year with Aeronca Champ and I have a real sweet spot for the little airplane. Maule, on the other hand, somehow does not appeal to me at all. Not sure why. It does have a big rear door which is nice. I heard the insurance can be pretty steep, though.
Click to expand...
The one listed is a nose wheel, but yeah, I get it. From what I hear, they are a little drafty too. Nice mix of performance and economy though if it fits the mission.

Good luck man..deciding on a plane isn't easy, but it's a good problem to have. :)
 
As much as I like my M20J (a model with the 2900lb GW) I can't say I'd recommend it for a full weight high density altitude plane. At full fuel I have about 550lbs payload. (948 total) But coming out of Denver on a warm-ish day at gross was not exactly a happy time, functional sure, but not really fun and fairly limited performance. I'm pretty solidly in the 182 or 206 camp for hauling a ton of stuff.
 
Another thing to consider is what the mission really is. I get it that the OP really wants to take his family places, utterly commendable by the way. The guys I know with two daughters usually want to go somewhere by themselves that has copious quantities of alcohol.

That said, how many flights is he really going to pack up his whole family and blast off. Teenage girls are usually uninterested in their parents activities, uninterested in aircraft and all things aviation, and are usually busy as hell. My guess is that the OP is going to mostly be blasting off by himself or with his lady or a couple pals.

Thus were it my utterly wise self (where's the sarcasm smiley when you need it) I'd get the aircraft I liked better. Especially if I'm right and the OP has a Skylane available to him. Remember, just because you own one aircraft doesn't mean you can't rent another should the need arise.

My buddy claimed he HAD to have a back seat and some useful load in our aircraft. Those were non-negotiable, had to have them. I think I could count the number of times he used that back seat on the fingers of one hand.
 
What about a Piper Cherokee 6?
img.axd
 
Appreciate valuable inputs, guys. I agree with the consensus that 177B should be off my list. M20J, on the other hand, I don't want to scratch it off of the list yet. The speed and efficiently of a Mooney will come in handy for a long cross-country, which I want to do more when I own an airplane.

Steingar, you are absolutely right. Even though I like to use the aircraft for family trips, many of my flights will be just by myself or with a friend, flying out for lunch or shooting practice approaches to maintain IFR currency.
 
steingar said:
My buddy claimed he HAD to have a back seat and some useful load in our aircraft. Those were non-negotiable, had to have them. I think I could count the number of times he used that back seat on the fingers of one hand.
Click to expand...

My wife and I use the back seat of our M20-C every time we travel, cause she can't pack light enough to fit in the baggage area, even for a weekend . . . . . . But she's getting better.

It also comes in handy for taking friends on short pancake or burger runs, so that both spouses can go along.

Nobody wants to travel a long distance back there. Me? I've only test-sat the back seat while on the ground with the ignition key in my pocket.
 
Hank S said:
My wife and I use the back seat of our M20-C every time we travel, cause she can't pack light enough to fit in the baggage area, even for a weekend . . . . . . But she's getting better.

It also comes in handy for taking friends on short pancake or burger runs, so that both spouses can go along.

Nobody wants to travel a long distance back there. Me? I've only test-sat the back seat while on the ground with the ignition key in my pocket.
Click to expand...

I think it's ok to recommend an F or J model for those who need a bona fide back seat. Nothing wrong with C and Es from an efficiency perspective, but they're not 4 seaters in earnest in my book as an Arrow owner, the way the mid-bodies (F/J/K) are. This isn't a Mooney specific thing; I make the same commentary of pre-'73 PA-28-235s and 60s vintage PA-28-140/160/180s. Especially egregious on the -235; all HP on a cherokee 140 volume cabin. WTH were they thinking?
 
To answer your question I was actually in the 200hp retractable version.
 
If it hasn't been mentioned, the C177 has some funky W&B if you put people in all four seats. They can handle the weight, but you'll need to load carefully or you may be outside the envelope.
 
Fearless Tower said:
If you can get over the look....
Seriously, though, when I was growing up, we flew all over the southwest as a family of 4 in a Turbo Lance. Even up to Telluride. It is a great family hauler.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

She is a bit of an ugly duck but a great performer.
 
labbadabba said:
If it hasn't been mentioned, the C177 has some funky W&B if you put people in all four seats. They can handle the weight, but you'll need to load carefully or you may be outside the envelope.
Click to expand...

CG is actually great in a 177B. It's nose heavy so you have few issues with aft cg. I put my family of three (including heavy car seat in the back seat) plus a ton of baggage for a four day trip in the baggage compartment with full tanks. My wife could sit in the back with the toddler to keep him company.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top