Z W

When I moved from a C to a K, I noticed the K model being bigger, heavier on the controls, and as you would expect as a result, harder to slow down. The K is less forgiving of carrying extra speed on final. Easier to get behind the airplane with the K. Overall it was an easy transition though, the planes handle mostly the same. Just be sure you're 80 knots short final, 75 knots over the fence, especially when light, and it will land just fine. Adding additional engine management may make it worse, although I have no experience in a 231 with the LB engine. From what I've read here, for takeoff, you can't firewall the throttle, but instead add throttle to max MP (40 I think?) before starting your takeoff roll. If you firewall the throttle you can overboost. Without the intercooler, I have read you may become limited by TIT temps up high, depending on temperature and altitude. 1650 is max TIT and you must reduce power to stay below it by going either rich or lean of peak. Good luck and have fun!

We have a GNC 355 and it's a nice unit. We kept our 430W and did not really see the need for a second backup ground-based nav radio. Approaches we fly are now are GPS just about 100% of the time unless there's an outage. The GTN 650/750's provide a ground-based nav radio (VORs, ILS, etc) and are also capable of using Garmin's VNAV feature. Those are the only functional differences between a GTN and the GNC 355. We didn't have VNAV before so I don't know what I'm missing. I've heard it's nice. As I understand it, It allows you to program altitude at a certain fix in your flight plan and let your autopilot take you up or down without having to change the altitude manually, e.g. while flying an arrival or SID. Did not seem worth the extra cost of going with a GTN vs GNC but your experience may vary.

Usually around 1550-1600, depending on outside air temp and altitude. 1650 TIT is max for continuous operation and I've never seen it hit that with those power settings.

2500 RPM, 28"MP, lean to peak TIT, 11.5 GPH. Works great. Can lean about another .5 GPH, which is 25-50 degrees LOP, before it gets rough on our bird, but speed rapidly seems to drop off, and the engine doesn't seem as happy. Crack the cowl flaps as necessary to keep all cylinders under 380 degrees. Your mileage may vary.

It doesn't happen on mine either unless I sit at idle and full rich, which quickly fouls a plug anyways. I've just learned not to do that while I line up and wait. I had developed a bad habit of always going full rich as I rolled onto the runway. Now I only go full rich immediately before full throttle, problem solved.

Nice short landing! Looks like you've got the speed nailed.

Mine does this too. Mechanic says it's fine, it's set per book, and it won't shut off, and it never has. That being said, I try not to go full rich until go-around, and leave the mixture at about an inch out during approach. It takes practice and conditioning that you always go full prop and mixture before throttle, both for take-off and go-around. I will usually go throttle about 1/4 in, then full rich, then throttle in. At a minimum, this avoids uncomfortable looks from passengers when they hear the engine burble prior to takeoff. I've often wondered if it's best practice or not, since if you forget mixture and go full throttle, you won't be making full power. Interesting to hear others have the same experience.

With gear down and full flaps, at 75-80 KIAS, the plane is not slippery and will really sink. It also uses far less runway. It's the proper landing speed for short final, and the required speed for short field landings. The angle of approach is related to the speed, but not exactly. You could be flying a stabilized 3 degree approach at 100 KIAS in a clean configuration with the engine near idle and not be able to slow down and stop in time for a short field. You could be flying the same 3 degree approach at 80 KIAS in a landing configuration and using more power and have no trouble at all. Adjusting your angle of approach in different configurations at different speeds is a great exercise to really hone your piloting skills. A good CFI can show you the differences. I think you may be focusing on the wrong indicator for a go-around. It should be your indicated airspeed, not your angle of approach. At 75 KIAS the plane will drop nicely onto the runway with very little float. At 90 KIAS you will float for most of those 2,000 feet. Many pilots fly closer to 90 and have trouble as a result. I myself would be concerned about a 2,000 foot runway and would consult the POH landing distance tables carefully. That's not very long for a K model and you would have to nail your speed, if it's possible. Also, your useful load should not change your landing performance. Gross weight does that. I believe all Ks are 2900lbs max gross. Early Js had lower amounts. If anything the lighter, earlier Mooneys should have better short field performance. They have less mass to slow down and stop and aerodynamically are the same. That was my experience going from a C model with speed mods to a K. I expect it might be the same with a lighter J. Just pointing out that your useful load number does not really have anything to do with landing distance. Good luck getting used to the new ship, and good for you on spending some time figuring out how to master the landings. It's a little different than other planes but very capable once you have the techniques down.

Just spent a lot of time and money fixing a similar issue over the last 3-4 months. Oil (a somewhat concerning amount) was dripping out the front of the cowl onto the front tire after shutdown on our 262. It could not be replicated on the ground or de-cowled, no leaks were visible. Apparently the oil can leak from a lot of places, and flight pressures blow it everywhere. Here is what we did: 1. De-cowl the plane, clean the engine thoroughly, run it up, and check for leaks. It may not be coming from where you think it is. 2. Clean the oil/air separator and lines. This should be done at annual but is often missed. 3. Replace the gasket on the oil filler cap. It was $10.00 from Aircraft Spruce. A bad gasket can pressurize the case in flight, maybe. This did not fix our issue but is cheap and easy. Existing gasket was hard rubber and maybe from 1982. A Mooney-versed mechanic said many planes are missing the gasket entirely. The cap now seals up much tighter and feels more secure, if nothing else. 4. Check the oil/air separator lines are in the right places. There is a backup air exit line designed to prevent pressurization of the case if the main drain line freezes up. Clogs in the lines or improper routing can supposedly cause the separator to function incorrectly in flight. 5. In our case, the oil was leaking from behind a plate that bolts to the engine and holds the vacuum pump and second alternator. This is a unique plate for the 252 TSIO-360-MB engine I believe. It really looked like it was coming out the air/oil separator lines but it wasn't. It was coming out from the plate, running down the vacuum pump, dripping onto the wastegate, and ending up in the nose / on the front landing gear. There is a $10.00 seal behind the plate that had failed. Replacing it fixed the problem. Before this, our engine would routinely blow oil out down to about 6 quarts. We ran it down to 5, filled it to 6, which minimized the blowout. After all of this, it happily holds 8 quarts and does not leak. Not sure which fix ended up with that result, or if it was a combination of all of the above, but I'm very happy with it.

Welcome! Great looking plane. I'm not in KC but down at Lake of the Ozarks and go in and out of Lee's Summit and KC Downtown regularly. I know there are some Mooneys based at Lee's Summit but I don't know if any of their owners are on here.

Ours did something similar once. Turned out to be the voltage regulators.

The 252s have a TSIO-360-MB or later TSIO-360-SB engine. Ours is an MB. The main difference is a fully automatic wastegate so there is no throttle management for the pilot. Takeoffs and go-arounds are always full throttle with no worry of overboosting the engine. They also all had dual alternators, allowing for FIKI on some planes, and an increased service ceiling of 28,000 feet. Many of the 231s with intercoolers and Merlins added perform about the same but I believe you still have to manage the throttle to avoid overboosting the engine, resulting in higher pilot workload. 252's are hard to find for sale. They are considered peak Mooney efficiency. Later long-body models go faster and have more cargo room but burn significantly more fuel to do it, often resulting in decreased range. There are lots of threads on this topic here and I'm sure a better Mooney historian than me can give more info if you want.

We have a M20K 262, which means it is a 231 converted to the 252 engine by STC. It cruises best at 11.5 gallons per hour, regardless of altitude. With the turbo, altitude is chosen based on winds, clouds, and comfort / turbulence. I use these numbers for real-world flight planning: 155 KTAS at 5,000 feet 165 KTAS at 9,000 feet 180 KTAS at 15,000 feet The plane has the same indicated airspeed all the way up and likes to settle in between 140 and 145 KIAS depending on load and smoothness of the air. When there's a nice tailwind and oxygen in the tank we'll go high. When there's a headwind, we climb just until smooth air usually and stay there. Typical trip is high going east and low going west unless you get lucky. Having flown both a naturally aspirated C Mooney and now the turbo K, I would not give the turbo up. It's not about speed or fuel burn, but comfort and options. Compared to overall cost of ownership the additional money is not that much. You might keep an eye out for a 262 converted 231. There are not many of them but they sometimes come up in your price range and are usually a little cheaper than a factory 252. Most have the long range 105 gallon tanks which you can use to tanker a ridiculous amount of fuel when you're flying solo.

Lood makes a good point, but it's only half the story. Things can sometimes get ahead of you in any plane, even a 110-knot 172. It just happens faster in a faster plane. In any plane, you have to have the discipline to Aviate - Navigate - Communicate, in that order. It just becomes more critical that you stick to that in a fast plane. First, control your airplane. Need some time? Slow down. Not sure where you are? Level off, stabilize, and then figure it out. ATC confusing you? Ask for clarification, a vector heading, or just say "Unable." More than once while learning the faster plane I had to do a spiral descent to lose speed and altitude to make the airport. It's not that big a deal, as long as you commit to never getting rushed, coming in high, or coming in fast. It works great if ATC keeps you high for too long, outside controlled airspace anyways. I still sometimes end up high, fast, or both, and have to fly a larger pattern than normal to give me extra time to lose the speed and altitude. Happened to me yesterday, for the first time in a long time.

Rik, I've posted this before. I've found owning a Mooney costs about $10k per year on average. That's $3,000/yr hangar, $2500/yr insurance (2 IFR-rated pilots), $2500/yr annual ($1500 base cost, plus whatever they always seem to find), and $2,000/yr random maintenance. When I say random maintenance, I mean you might have $15k one year, and $500 the next. So it's really an average. That's all before you turn the key for your first flight of the year. Gas is not included. Oil changes are not included. Engine reserves not included. Many find ways to decrease this cost. Owner-assist annuals are popular, as are used parts and owner-manufactured parts. I don't do any of that. I wish I had more time to do it. Bad years, such as the year we had to replace a corroded spar cap in the wing, require spending more on the plane than is probably financially logical. But then again, none of this makes financial sense. In some places, hangar rates are much higher than my $250/month. So check your local airport to adjust that number. This is just to give you an idea of one person's experience. You can maybe do it cheaper. It might cost you more. Upgrades are extra. Just one person's experience for you. And I don't track it all that close. I'm happier when I don't.

You've walked into several of the "great debates" of general aviation here. Turbo vs. non-turbo is a topic that has had many threads devoted to it here. I'm in the turbo camp. Once you've flown one, it's hard to go back to a plane that loses power as it goes up. It's not for speed, but for comfort, high altitude takeoffs, and topping weather. You won't probably find a good 252 in your price range, but a nice 231 would be available. Also possibly a 262, which is a 231 with an STC for the 252 engine, which trade for less than a factory 252. Buy your last plane first vs. buy a step-up plane is also another hotly contested topic. Most agree with proper discipline and training, you can step into a turbocharged cross-country machine with a fresh PPL, as long as you continue your instrument training. Others suggest spending a couple hundred hours putzing around VFR in a trainer first. There are transaction costs associated with changing planes (sales tax, insurance requirements for dual instruction, upgrades, etc). There probably is no right or wrong answer, but everyone will tell you to be careful going the fast upgrade route, and not to push yourself while you learn. What it costs to overhaul an engine is another topic, with debate about what should be included in an "overhaul". A local mechanic might "overhaul" your lower case for $15-20k and leave all of the accessories intact (mags, cylinders, turbochargers, tubing, etc) even on a 252. If you want shiny new everything from the factory out of a crate, removed and reinstalled by a brand name shop, the cost is more like $50-60k. Obviously different engines are different costs. $7500ish of that is a new turbo and wastegate. Shopping around you might get them cheaper. As you are shopping, look at what was done at the last "overhaul" to see what you are buying. Also consider the calendar time since overhaul. Many consider a 10-year old engine to be due for overhaul, especially if it's only got 500 hours on it. Just don't ask whether you should run your engine LOP or ROP, whether you should get a twin because they're safer, whether a Mooney should be landed with partial flaps, or whether your wife should be able to tell you you need to buy the plane with the parachute. You'll get too much information all at once, none of which will make any sense.

You've just described the airlines. No single-engine piston aircraft fits any of those categories . That's a joke. However, I'll suggest that you do not yet know what you don't know. Keep working on your PPL and instrument rating, and read this site and maybe some other aircraft sites daily. Beechtalk.com is probably the most popular. You are asking the right questions and getting the right responses. Mooneys are great. We've owned a C and a K model. The C was an honest 140 kt plane. The K is an honest 170 kt plane. We owned both at the same time for a while and really compared them side-by-side. To be honest, the speed did not make a noticeable difference in how I flew. The amount of time difference for a flight varied more on how quick I was with the pre-flight, time spent doing pattern entries or approaches, and headwinds than it did the speed of the plane. The turbo made a huge difference, allowing me to top weather and get to favorable winds, as well as visit mountain airports. It also hasn't cost much to maintain. Whatever you do, keep with it. We don't fly for financial reasons, time saving reasons, or safety reasons. We fly because life's too short to stay on the ground.

I find it odd that some suggest a factory in China today, with today's technology, can't build a Mooney as good as they were built in the USA in the 60's, 70's, and 80's. Even if the USA is the leader still (which is debatable), I don't think China is going to be 30+ years behind us in quality. Those 30+ year old planes are the planes most of us are flying around. Apparently they're good enough, and safe enough. Many of our planes were built before people knew what "the Internet" meant. I say bring on the global marketplace. I want the best airplane anyone can build, anywhere. Maybe it will come out of a country where the FAA isn't strangling growth and development in the name of "safety." Whatever it takes. Maybe that will wake up our politicians and get some of the red tape removed from our aircraft certification process.

If you really want to sell it, pick the high side of whatever price you think it should bring, then reduce it by 3% every 30 days until it's gone. That's how you find the true market price of anything. Planes, real estate, vehicles, etc. Set a reminder on your calendar. Anything over 30 days at the same price and you're just hoping somebody with more money starts shopping, which is a bad recipe for selling anything you really want gone. Some of those $180k 252's have been on the market for quite some time. List prices are not sale prices. You generally do not now get any money back for upgrades installed, or not much. 50% on brand new avionics like your GTN 750, but generally nothing for long range tanks. It looks like a very nice plane. Good luck with the sale.

Very nice looking plane. You might have a qualified A&P review the weight and balance logs for this plane. I suspect you could find some old equipment that was removed from the plane, but not from the weight and balance, or a math error. It seems too low for the equipment listed, unless I'm missing something. Good luck with the sale.

I always file from my Android tablet using Garmin Pilot shortly before I start my pre-flight. If I'm at a fuel stop, I file it right after I pay for the gas. I select the departure time as 15 minutes from now. ATC always has it when I radio, by the time I preflight / sump fuel / load up / start the engine. Eliminates the need to ever call and "edit" the plan for departure time or re-routing. And I always get the latest up-to-the-minute weather and notams, which I review before I file. I realize that a flight plan made 3 hours prior is probably still good, but I feel better with an update right before departure.

875 lb useful in a 252 will do that as long as the passengers + cargo are under 475 lbs. You need 65 gallons, which is a 1 hour reserve. + or - the wind, obviously. The real challenge will be finding a passenger that wants to make those 4.5 hour legs with you. And finding days where the weather allows 750 NM of uninterrupted flight. A Bravo will have a higher useful load, and burn 3-4 more GPH. You'll use the extra useful load on gas. Pretty much the same effect, though, and you'll go a little faster.

Don't be too worried about the low useful loads in the 252's. They don't burn much gas and are the efficiency kings. Everybody runs the "full fuel payload" numbers, but the fact is, you don't need full fuel very often, because you don't burn much. Standard 75 gallon tanks, at 12 GPH, gives you over 6 hours of fuel. I have 875 useful load, which is "low," but I can still put 4 adults in, 40 gallons of fuel, and go 2.5 hours at 170 kts, over 400 NM. I sometimes think Mooney would have sold more of these if they had just put 50 gallon tanks in them, so the "full fuel payload" numbers were higher. As a practical matter I keep about 50-60 gallons in mine all the time, fly 3 hours legs, and never worry about the useful load unless I'm doing a 4 adult trip, which seems to happen only once every couple of years, and is always a challenge in any 4-seat piston single. They're not useful load limited planes.

These are all considerations for every plane on the market. Valid points, but I hope there isn't so much negativity in my thread if I ever go to list my plane. GA is having a hard enough time without us stomping on each other's listings and scaring away potential buyers. The price point on this plane, in my opinion, is not outside the range I've seen others listed, and I follow the 252 market casually. Of course, the list price is really nothing but the beginning point for a conversation, if you're serious.

One other thing to be aware of is that not all of the 262 conversions received all the bells and whistles of the 252. Some lack speed brakes, heated prop, rounded windows, split rear seats, maybe a few other items. Others got all of those items added, if the original 231 didn't have them already. So, investigate a bit before you buy. The conversions were done largely at the owner's discretion, and so some owners opted not to add everything involved. I think the only real constant is the 252's TSIO-360-MB engine.