Rick Junkin

That made me laugh.

Performance is only part of the equation, so I wouldn’t pass up a nice Bravo. I love mine and have applied the resources to make it my forever airplane. And keep in mind we were comparing the Bravo and the Encore, not a straight 252, and Encores are relatively rare and not often on the market. And when they are they are priced higher than a similarly equipped Bravo. There are good reasons for that, many mentioned in this thread.

The baggage compartment and forward of the front seats. I was corrected above. The forward space allows the front seats to be a little further forward, effectively creating more leg room in the back.

I stand corrected.

Always the voice of reason.

There it is! Thanks @Pinecone. @snowman, this is the comparison you were looking for in real terms from real people flying real airplanes. See the 252 Encore performance numbers above. And also the Bravo numbers at 19,000 from @Fritz above. Here are the same numbers for my Bravo at 17,000 cruise: 30", 2200 RPM, at 13.2 GPH, LOP for 70% power, for a 180 KTAS cruise. Nearly identical, with the 252 Encore winning for economy and useful load. The Bravo can go faster if you whip it, up around 190 KTAS, but it costs at least 18 GPH ROP to get it. The Encore can also go faster but for less of a fuel penalty. So the only other factor that comes to mind is the Encore mid body vs the Bravo long body, and that's pretty meaningless (in my opinion) unless you have a regular mission to carry folks in the back seat. There are other factors, but this should get you headed where you want to go in your decision process. Good luck with your search! Cheers, Junkman EDIT: To answer your question about prices, if I were to put my Bravo up for sale right now I would be asking in the neighborhood of $250K. Well maintained 1989 airplane with a mid time engine and a contemporary glass panel. But it isn't for sale and won't be for quite some time (knock on wood) .

The Schauer unit you're looking at has more functionality. A charger as well as a 20A power supply. The White Lightning units have a bit more power at 27A but aren't suitable for use as a charger for a discharged battery. They do make a unit that has an actual BatteryMinder built in but it is about twice the cost. The White Lightning units do have very solid construction, weighing twice as much as the Schauer units, and display both output volts and amps, have a timer function you can set to keep from overcharging an in-circuit battery if you forget to turn it off, and have a couple of USB power ports that I've used to power my borescope and keep my iPad charged while displaying the borescope images. It seems more designed for constant use in a shop environment rather than for occasional use by us hobbyists, which I guess means it will last me forever? But I think the Schauer unit will also last forever in our environment, so is likely the better choice. Cheers, Junkman

It's a more expensive option, but you could consider using a White Lightning GPU if you anticipate needing to run avionics for an extended time without taxing the battery. I picked one up while my panel was in work so that I could sit in the cockpit for hours on end reviewing all of the configuration settings and learning how I wanted to exploit all the new-to-me capabilities. For just doing database updates it, again, is probably overkill but it works for me. It's also useful while doing maintenance that requires power on the airplane. Cheers, Junkman

@toto I'm thinking @Niko182 was only updating the nav data on the G3X, which goes very quickly. Updating the whole suite of databases takes about 20-25 minutes, with the FlightCharts and the IFR & VFR Charts taking the bulk of the time. If you also use an iPad with Foreflight or Garmin Pilot or other EFB with current charts you can reference that as your source of the required current charts and not worry about updating the G3X Touch FlightCharts or IFR & VFR Charts every cycle. One technique to streamline your data management chore would be to download only the G3X Nav Data update to an SD card and then use another SD card to download the rest of the chart data. Insert the Nav Data SD card before engine start and load it, fly, then put in the other SD card after landing/shutdown and load the rest while you're putting the airplane to bed. If all you're running is the G3X you'll be drawing less than 4 amps on a 28V system, 8 on a 12V system, which won't kill an otherwise good battery in 20 minutes. If you have a BatteryMinder or similar you can connect that before starting the post-flight data load and not have to worry about the battery at all. This is probably complete overkill, but here’s how I manage my G3X and GTN data cards. I use a bunch of ‘em. G3X data on the left with two separate sets of identical cards (-1 and -2) for the GDU460 and GDU470 data so I can update both G3X GDUs at the same time. GTN cards are on the right. GDU460-2 and GDU470-2 (not in the case) were loaded with the recent database updates and my checklist file and remain in the airplane now for flight data logging. When the next update cycle comes around I’ll load both GDU460-1 and GDU470-1 with the new data and move the cards to the top slots in the case, which reminds me that they have the new data on them, and go to the airplane and swap them for the -2 cards and put the -2s in the second slots in the case. Same for the GTN card on the right side, I’ll load it and move it to the top slot, swap it out, yada yada. The rest of the cards are used for what they’re labeled. This is just one more exercise that allows me to revel in my geekiness/nerdiness. Cheers, Junkman

I fly a TLS/Bravo. There is a good chart that shows a comparative plot of book cruise speeds vs altitude for alot of the Mooney models, and unfortunately I can't find it right now. Maybe someone else can and post it here? It really depends on how hard you're willing to push the engine, but the 252 can out-perform a Bravo at higher altitudes at the same or lower fuel flows. I run LOP in the mid teens and conservatively get 170-175KTAS at 13.2 GPH for an efficiency of about 13 NM/Gallon, no wind. EDIT: Found it! Again these are book max performance values, which with the Bravo will be extremely unkind to your engine and nobody uses them. I think I was remembering the Rocket performance which is better than the Bravo at altitude. The 252 and M20M are much closer in performance when the M is operated more conservatively, and the K generally gets the edge on economy. LOP ops affects that, but I can't speak to real world 252 numbers. However, the chart gives a reasonable relative comparison across the models. As for the discussion of weights, again it depends. To compare with the data posted above from 1996, my airplane comes in at an empty weight of 2460 with full 55# of TKS fluid, vs the 2527 in the original 1996 data sheet. The Charlie weights in the tail can be removed in many airplanes that have had glass panel upgrades, gaining another ~20# of useful load. According to the chart in the maintenance manual I could have taken mine out after my panel upgrade (and I did for a short time) but I'm a big boy at 270# so I put them back in to keep the CG further back beyond the max weight step when I'm solo with little baggage. Many of us fly with the rear seats removed, gaining another 30# of useful load. So for my airplane if I emptied the TKS tank, removed the Charlie weights and have the back seats out, my empty weight goes from 2460 down to 2355, a whopping 170# less than the data sheet and yielding a useful load of 1,013!! This doesn't answer the engine weight question definitively, but the standard dry weight listed on page 2-4 in the Lycoming TIO-540 Operator's Manual (attached) is 493#. I'm waiting for a 252 owner to weigh in. I'm a fan of that airplane, perhaps the best example of a Mooney ever produced. Or maybe an Encore. Or... hell they're all great. Cheers, Junkman 1-Lycoming TIO 540 series operating handbook.pdf

@0TreeLemur was talking about download speed from his JPI to the USB, which is fast. Uploads to the Savvy site are slower but still fast, something less than 10 seconds per log file. I don’t see much difference whether I upload from my iPad or my computer using wifi, and using “cellular”on the iPad only takes a few seconds longer. It takes more time to set up split screen with the Savvy site and the files app than it does to transfer the data. Cheers, Junkman

I upload my data from the G3X SD card to the Savvy website by pulling it out and inserting it into an SD card adapter plugged into my iPad before I leave the cockpit. Piece of cake. You could do the same thing with anything that uses an SD card or USB stick, you just need the right adapter. EDIT: I use split-screen mode on the iPad and just drag the log files into the Savvy upload box. Cheers, Junkman

At that power setting on a M20M you should be able to set around 18GPH ROP and keep the temps in check. Have you tried opening your cowl flaps in cruise? Some folk have reported needing them half way open in cruise for adequate CHT control. Your CHTs are relatively even so probably not a baffling issue. Your TIT doesn’t look correct to me, as compared to the individual EGTs. Generally the TIT runs about 50 degrees higher than the average of the individual EGTs on my engine. Yours looks about 100 degrees lower than where I’d expect it to be, which may indicate a tired and failing TIT probe. They last 200-300 hours in my experience. If you want to try something different and are willing to run at a lower power setting, try 30/2200 and ~16.5GPH. That’s a ROP setting at about 75%. Adjust the cowl flaps to see if you can keep the CHTs in the 360-380 range. TIT will be in the mid 1500s. If you want to try LOP, pull the fuel flow back to 13.2GPH and see if your engine will run ok there. That’s 70%. You should be able to keep CHTs in the 330-350 range and the TIT under 1600. You’re having temp control issues so I recommend moving to a lower power setting for your experimenting to see if you can get things under control, and then work up to a higher setting as you learn how your engine performs and what it needs to keep the temps where you want them. Cheers, Junkman

I hold out some hope that this ruling will impact the executive agencies in a positive way (from the citizen’s standpoint) that dissuades them from business as usual since they’ll have the burden of proof, justification and judicial oversight of the way they craft and apply regulation. It is a long-sighted hope that will take decades to undo decades of autocratic agency culture. As for the costs, if it weren’t for lawyers I wouldn’t need one. Nothing new there. That’s another windmill for another day.

Indeed, there is much irony in most discussions of topics regarding the bureaucracy and its merit or harm. Eminent domain comes to mind as an easily inflamed topic, to your point about airspace. The important thing is that we communicate well and in good faith from both sides of an issue and arrive at a mutually acceptable resolution, whether the resolution is palatable from both sides, or even either side, or not. We haven't been very skilled at that in recent years. In some cases we have to simply agree to disagree. My interest in the topic at hand is the throttling of executive agencies that have been operating as if their regulations carry the weight of law without any checks and balances or opportunity for challenges that are adjudicated from outside the agency. The latest supreme court ruling changes that. I'm not a lawyer so am happy to hear from the knowledgable folks here and become more educated.