17 Jun 2025, 12:48 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 210L/M vs Mooney 231/252 M20K Posted: 12 May 2015, 21:20 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 08/30/13 Posts: 417 Post Likes: +71 Company: Cruce Aircraft Services Location: KPGD
Aircraft: Learjet 55, C-310
|
|
Need TKS already installed. A36 is out of my price range. Is the mooneys useful load of 900 pounds seems low. After filling the tanks you're talking about 460lbs for adults and luggage? My wife wieghts 90 pounds which helps lol.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 210L/M vs Mooney 231/252 M20K Posted: 12 May 2015, 21:26 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 08/30/13 Posts: 417 Post Likes: +71 Company: Cruce Aircraft Services Location: KPGD
Aircraft: Learjet 55, C-310
|
|
What kind of TAS can you plan on in the non turbo 210L/M?
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 210L/M vs Mooney 231/252 M20K Posted: 12 May 2015, 21:34 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 02/09/11 Posts: 652 Post Likes: +102 Company: Aero Teknic Inc. Location: CYHU / Montreal St-Hubert
Aircraft: MU-2B-60, SR22,C182Q
|
|
Username Protected wrote: What kind of TAS can you plan on in the non turbo 210L/M? I have seen up to 175 KTAS when alone and light in a C210N at 7,500 feet. The 210L/M should be basically the same. It's more realistic to plan for 165 KTAS. -Pascal
_________________ http://www.wi-flight.net/
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 210L/M vs Mooney 231/252 M20K Posted: 12 May 2015, 22:15 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 08/30/13 Posts: 417 Post Likes: +71 Company: Cruce Aircraft Services Location: KPGD
Aircraft: Learjet 55, C-310
|
|
Is youre the 285HP or 300?
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 210L/M vs Mooney 231/252 M20K Posted: 12 May 2015, 22:24 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 02/09/11 Posts: 652 Post Likes: +102 Company: Aero Teknic Inc. Location: CYHU / Montreal St-Hubert
Aircraft: MU-2B-60, SR22,C182Q
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Is youre the 285HP or 300? I don't think it matters. The fastest speeds for a normally aspirated Cessna 210 are attained at altitudes where you are getting perhaps 22 inches of manifold pressure and likely running at 2500 RPM. The 300 HP engines I believe have a 5 minute limitation for running at maximum RPM, the reduced, continuous RPM maximum RPM gives you 285 HP. Note I have less than 35 hours of experience on normally aspirated 210s versus about 1,000 hours in P210s (various P210Ns and the P210R). -Pascal
_________________ http://www.wi-flight.net/
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 210L/M vs Mooney 231/252 M20K Posted: 12 May 2015, 22:26 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 01/16/11 Posts: 11068 Post Likes: +7095 Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
|
|
Username Protected wrote: 900lbs is good for a 200hp plane. If you need to lift more you will need a bigger engine. and mo money 
_________________ ---Rusty Shoe Keeper---
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 210L/M vs Mooney 231/252 M20K Posted: 12 May 2015, 22:39 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 06/02/13 Posts: 1806 Post Likes: +540
Aircraft: 1976 V35B
|
|
I was seriously considering a M252 Last year, until I learned that the Useful load with full fuel was in the neighborhood of 350-400lbs 190kt cruise was sure tantalizing though. Would just have to mail my children ahead of time. MJ
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 210L/M vs Mooney 231/252 M20K Posted: 12 May 2015, 22:44 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 01/16/11 Posts: 11068 Post Likes: +7095 Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I was seriously considering a M252 Last year, until I learned that the Useful load with full fuel was in the neighborhood of 350-400lbs MJ that's kinda misleading though... My 201 has 100 usable or about 1800 mile range. 60 gallons get's me in the 1100 mile range. That being said, an A36 is a much larger interior plane with more people options.
_________________ ---Rusty Shoe Keeper---
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 210L/M vs Mooney 231/252 M20K Posted: 12 May 2015, 22:44 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 09/03/10 Posts: 273 Post Likes: +45 Location: KFCM
Aircraft: A36
|
|
Username Protected wrote: 900lbs is good for a 200hp plane. If you need to lift more you will need a bigger engine. Charles, Not that 10hp is a big deal but the M20K carries a TSIO-360-GB or LB is a 210 HP engine (6cly). The M20Js are IO 360 NA engines. And I agree that the Mooney have decent payload for their HP. They also have excellent range, baggage for 4, not so much. To the original question and comments, Its fun the hear real world numbers on aircraft but like many comments stated...mission, and budget are the main drivers. This was positioned as "vs" question and the 210 and 20K have different strengths.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Cessna 210L/M vs Mooney 231/252 M20K Posted: 12 May 2015, 22:55 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 06/02/13 Posts: 1806 Post Likes: +540
Aircraft: 1976 V35B
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I was seriously considering a M252 Last year, until I learned that the Useful load with full fuel was in the neighborhood of 350-400lbs MJ that's kinda misleading though... My 201 has 100 usable or about 1800 mile range. 60 gallons get's me in the 1100 mile range. That being said, an A36 is a much larger interior plane with more people options.
Michael,
I'm serious. For the 252 I was looking at out in Washington state with TKS. These were the numbers. I ran them over and over. I really liked everything about this plane. I was ready to to fly out and make an offer, until a friend pointed out the obvious. I couldn't carry my family without dumping fuel. I crunched the numbers.
All the best,
Mark
|
|
Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025
|
|
|
|