Z W

A 252 will do about 165-185 knots at the altitudes you will fly it regularly, which are from 9k-17k feet. Fuel burn about 12.5 GPH, plus or minus one GPH based on your power settings. The higher you go, the faster you are. You can go faster in the flight levels but oxygen requirements and time of useful consciousness keep most below there. And headwinds, somehow more than half the time. I suspect someone will be along shortly to post better numbers, but the above is my experience. If I were shopping today I'd look hard at the Bravos. I would like the extra room of the long body and the extra power for heavily-loaded takeoffs. They burn a little more fuel, but go a little faster. Lots to like in both airframes. I would say buying the best particular plane you can find, at the right price with the right features, would be more important than choosing one model over the other.

Peak TIT is just the highest TIT reading you can get by moving the mixture knob from rich to lean. Peak TIT in the TSIO-360 is maximum efficiency for fuel burn and will result in the highest possible speeds at the lowest possible fuel burn. I personally believe that's why the POH recommends it, as that was the ultimate design of the M20K model and I believe it's marketing sales pitch. As an owner-operator some 40 years later, other concerns do arise. If I run POH-recommended 75% power, being 28" MP and 2500 RPM, leaned to peak TIT, I get best efficiency and good speeds, but peak TIT will be somewhere around 1625 degrees, which is 25 below redline and within limits, but running the turbocharger system that hot is likely not best for its longevity. Cylinder head temperatures are all fine and can be kept below 380 degrees by adjusting the cowl flaps. My current practice on most trips is to instead run 26.5"-27" MP and 2500 RPM and then lean to peak TIT. I lose about 5 knots, but on most days and altitudes, the TIT will peak somewhere below 1600. Fuel flow is also reduced, and CHT's are easier to keep under 380. Often you get to close the cowl flaps a little more, which makes the speed loss even less, more like 2-3 knots, compared to running the engine harder and hotter with them open. Alternate practice for engine care is to remain at 28" and 2500 MP, and lean only to 1575 TIT, which will be well rich of peak. You will be burning an extra 1 to 1.5 GPH of fuel, probably close to 13.5 GPH. You may pick up about 5 knots. This is high speed, low efficiency cruise and is fun if you're trying to set a ground speed record. The extra fuel keeps your CHT's nice and cool also. I have tried running lean of peak TIT lots of times at different power settings. The idea is to boost your MP up to get the same speeds and performance while LOP, with lower temperatures. My engine, at least, does not run as smoothly and does not seem to like it. That's unscientific and I wish I had better data, because the plane will do it, but I feel the roughness in my feet. It stays smooth at very low power settings where the engine temps are already good and fuel burn very low anyways, but when I push it hard, say at 28, 30, or 32" MP, I get the rough condition, so I just don't go there. Your experience may vary. Be careful reading posts about other engines and their power settings and LOP procedures. The TSIO-360 series is kind of an odd duck in the Mooney lineup. Great engine but a little complicated and it seems set up to run very differently than the earlier 4-cylinder Lycomings and the later, bigger engines they put in the Bravo and Acclaim. I do have a TSIO-360-MB as opposed to your TSIO-360-LB, but if you have an intercooler and automatic wastegate, supposedly the engines run about the same.

Agree with this 100%. You can fly a Mooney in a 3 degree or shallower approach at proper speeds and land short. Some of my worst landings have been high and steep approaches, on the back side of the power curve, all the way to the runway. It's very easy to get behind the plane and land very abruptly, with not enough energy to properly flare. Would also be easy to misjudge it and land short of the numbers, though I've never done that. This is a neat STOL trick in a Cessna 172 but does not work well in a Mooney. I'll get behind the power curve, intentionally, if I'm high and fast, to get back on glideslope and speed, but the plan is always to add significant power and lower the nose to get out of that condition once back on the standard 3 degree glide path. If there's not enough time to do that, then it's time to go around.

When I flew a C model with a 3-bladed prop, after learning proper speeds, it seemed able to land in about the same distance as the 172 trainers I came out of. I bet if we got the manuals out the 172's were capable of shorter, but the C could stop short pretty easy. You really got a lot of drag out of the 3-blade when you put the engine to idle. I never really did much short field work before we sold it but didn't give it that much thought either. Our current K model with a 2-bladed prop is not that way. It's harder to slow it down, and it just wants to keep going, especially when lightly loaded. I've always thought it's a combination of higher weights and aerodynamic cleanups. Being on speed is critical and it will absolutely land and stop in 2,000 feet, but I'm not sure I would try it where that's all the runway there is. I was based at a 2,800 ft field with very large trees at each end for three months and while the plane would do it, even at max gross per the POH, I was paying extra attention to the speed for every landing, and going around if I was a little fast. I made the turnoff at 2,000 feet down the runway every time (it was the only turnoff). I never did go try that with a significant crosswind. Shorter than 2,000 feet would be an absolute no-go for me in the K.

Hot start that works for me: For a very short stop (fuel or passenger loading only), just mixture in and turn the key. Leave the throttle cracked a half turn, or wherever it was to idle before shutdown. Usually fires up right away. For slightly longer stops, 30 minutes or so, mixture to idle cut-off, low boost on, let it run up to build pressure and flush the lines, then low boost off. Crank to start. If it doesn't immediately start, use short periods of prime pump (2-3 seconds each) between cranks until it catches. These are the hardest starts. Sometimes it floods. If it does, go to flooded start procedure: Mixture full rich, throttle full forward. Prime pump 8-10 seconds (intentionally making sure the engine is flooded). Mixture to idle cut off. Crank until it catches, then quickly go full rich mixture and throttle to idle, simultaneously if possible. This will start it every time. Same process you use to start a weedeater, just on a bigger scale. This one has saved me from several dead batteries on the ramp. It does result in fuel dripping out from the bottom of the cowling. It will also save you if you over-prime for a cold start, and I've been told it works in every model of airplane. Before every start - Warn any nervous passengers that it's not like a car engine and can be hard to start, but once it's started, it stays running really well. GA has a bad enough reputation and I think it's things like this that add to it.

Been running a mid-time TSIO-360-MB for about 10 years and several hundred hours now. We keep the engine cool, under 380, using a full engine monitor, cowl flaps, and several techniques, including full power climbs to altitude and careful cowl flap management in cruise, neither of which are recommended in the POH, but can be found on Mooneyspace and other places I'm sure. It takes work and management. Without the full monitor and those techniques, we'd be running closer to 400 degree CHTs very easily, which I expect is how the engines got that reputation in this plane. But it sure does run nice. With that, we've had to do some cylinder work. Replaced several of them at this point. Don't know how it was run before we got it. It's in right now for annual. #3 and #5 were both a little low on compression, 58/80 and 60/80. Inspection showed some corrosion on the valves, but still crosshatching on the cylinder walls. Current plan is to replace the valves and keep flying. Cost is some, but not too much, and we'll be up and flying again soon. Far below the cost of a "top overhaul" which involves unbolting several perfectly good cylinders and replacing them with "new" or overhauled ones of unknown quality, with a higher risk of infant mortality. So to answer your question, "top overhauls" are optional and not really required on this engine, or any other as far as I know. Careful management will extend your cylinder life. We do oil analysis and are watching for signs that it's time to do the major overhaul, which could come any time. When it does, we'll have a brand new powerplant on a great airframe, ready to go for a long time. No reason to be scared of a mid-time TSIO-360-MB in my opinion. 252's are great planes. Good luck shopping.

I fly a mid-body with a family of 4, boys ages 11 and 6 (and growing fast). We all fit just fine for now. Their growing size has me eyeing upgrades. It really takes a 6-seat twin to do much better than the Mooney for hauling us around. The 6-seat singles (36 Bonanza, Saratoga, Lance, 210, etc.) have more useful load on paper, but it comes with a much higher fuel burn, so you have to carry a lot more fuel with the higher useful load, and often a lower cruise speed to match. I'm not saying the Mooney is the best load hauler, because it's not, but the useful load number is just one factor in moving people across miles. Efficiency helps a lot. I've also read here that by the time the kids are teenagers too large to haul, they're in sports, have significant others, and generally otherwise aren't going on very many family vacations with mom and dad. And it's only a few years before they're out of the house. And then you might regret selling that Mooney that was perfect for you and your spouse and buying a 6-seat, gas-guzzling, high-maintenance airplane. So maybe it's best to pack carefully and just fly the Mooney on shorter legs. Just sharing my thoughts. Good luck with your search.

I had the same experience dealing with a lot of old, bad, and maybe questionably legal panel work. Just about every flight, some gauge or another in the panel would fail, light up a warning light, or otherwise de-rail the flight. AI, HSI, turn coordinator, autopilot, JPI engine monitor, transponder, all took turns failing in flight. It never impacted safety of the flight, exactly, but I started to not want to fly because of it, was not comfortable in IMC, and did not want to plan trips with others for fear that it would ruin GA for them. Finally had a good shop rip it all out and put in a new panel. After about two years, that feeling has pretty much gone away and it's great. Took some time. I hope that happens for you.

When this topic comes up, there's always a great discussion of pros vs. cons. What I like to pay attention to, is how many chime in that they bought a turbo, but then got tired of the cost and sold it to go back to a naturally-aspirated plane to save on maintenance and expense. Very few people say that. Those advising against the turbo seem to have limited experience with them. On the other hand, lots of people chime in that one they have had the turbo, they don't want to ever go without one. I'm in that category, except maybe I could live with a 300+ HP naturally aspirated engine. Having plenty of horsepower to cruise at any altitude is great for comfort, safety, and in a distant third place, speed. The turbo parts cost some to buy, overhaul, and maintain, but in the grand scheme of plane ownership, it's not much, and the benefits are significant.

Post your TAS and GPH on Mooneyspace, and within a few hours, someone will be along to post better numbers. It's the way of things.

$80k will barely buy you a tricked-out half-ton pickup truck from the dealer in today's dollars. For the same money, you can be going 140 knots direct destination on 10 GPH in a C model Mooney. A few years ago, when C models were topping out at $50k or so, the same was true.

Interesting thoughts. I'm not sure I agree with them. I would want to learn on the instruments I'll be flying. I would think training to do approaches on a modern Garmin panel with full autopilot, then being thrown into an older Mooney with vintage avionics, would make for a steep learning curve and require a lot of additional training. I learned to do approaches in an older Mooney with vintage avionics and a 2-axis wing leveler, and then later had to learn Garmin. I think doing it that way would be far easier than the opposite. Best option would be learn on glass and then buy a plane with a glass panel. We're far better off without vintage avionics for IFR flight. But that's budget-permitting.

Just keep going. Transition from a 172 to a M20C or J is no big deal. High vs. low wing, other than a little more float in ground effect, only matters when you're getting in and out of the plane. Complex endorsement, you'll have to remember to put the gear down. In the Mooney that's easy, it's the easiest way to slow down. I would suggest buying the M20 and using it to get your instrument rating. You want to end up owning anyways, and that way you'll be very familiar with instrument flying in your plane. It doesn't make sense to pay to rent a trainer for all those hours, then turn around and buy another plane, then have to learn the new plane. The M20C remains one of the best values in GA if you ask me, especially in today's hot market. Good luck.

I have done both. I prefer KBJC over KAPA, but either is fine, really. KAPA has more traffic. KBJC has more IFR routing issues. Another option is KFTG, formerly Frontrange, now called Colorado Air and Space Port, which can be faster all things considered coming from the east. You're a little farther from the mountain weather, and if you're picking up / dropping off people at Denver International with your rental car, it's very convenient, which is why I used it. It's right on I-70 and the drive time to Breckenridge is not significantly longer, maybe even faster with traffic. Not as much plane traffic as KAPA. If you go VFR, or maybe even IFR, be ready for some strange pattern instructions to keep you out of the class bravo.

Every Mooney I've flown in performs very well at max gross, as long as you have enough runway. With 105 gallon extended tanks, I start most flights at max gross by fueling to it as standard operating procedure. Never too much gas in the tanks. Gently rotate at 75 KIAS, level off, raise the gear and flaps, pitch down for 100 KIAS, and climb out at 500+ FPM. For me, I don't like going shorter than 3,000 feet of pavement with the tanks and seats full, and 4,000 feels a lot nicer. The plane will do less but you lose margins for error, especially if it's hot outside or you're at higher altitude airports. If you find the plane lands better heavy, you may be carrying too much speed on short final. You can get away with 80 KIAS when heavy. When light, 75 KIAS over the fence serves you better. Those 5 knots can really make a difference. Discussions on this site suggest the max gross limit on mid body Mooneys is tied to the landing gear and brakes, and not so much the wing or engine. I am not an aerospace engineer but I would say that matches my experience flying them. They do not struggle at max gross. Happy flying.

If you're new to shopping airplanes, just know the market is crazy right now. Anything with a low/mid time engine, nice paint, nice interior, WAAS GPS, and ADSB is selling immediately, often off-market, and never hitting Controller / Trade-a-Plane / Barnstormers. The only planes that you see are ones with issues like an engine at TBO. It's never been like this since I got into GA over 10 years ago. I don't know what to tell first time plane owners in today's market. In the past I would have said to avoid buying a project as your first plane, and anything with an engine at or over TBO should be considered a project. Today, there may not be any other option. But first, I would check the listings every day, have cash in hand, and call a few well-known Mooney dealers and let them know you're a buyer for the right plane as soon as it comes along. Make sure they know they can make a quick sale. Maybe also make a "Wanted" post here on Mooneyspace. There could be somebody thinking about selling.

It is a little confusing. The G3X started out available only for experimental aircraft. They later got it certified to go in aircraft like the Mooney. The G500 and later the G500Txi were built from the ground up to be certified-only. Initially there were quite a few differences between the two, and when we did our panel, we chose the G500Txi. Today, I'm not sure if the decision would be the same. Both are extremely capable, far beyond anything available to us even 5 years ago. Same with the G5 and GI275. The G5 came first, and was initially the only option for driving the GFC500 autopilot. Now, either the G3X or the GI275 can drive the autopilot. The GI275 can also be configured to show engine data and do other things and is generally more capable, although it has a slightly smaller screen. In my opinion, you can't go wrong with any of this stuff. It's all great. If you need a com and a 2nd GPS, consider the GNC 355. It's a nice unit and adds a certified WAAS GPS at very little cost over the GNC255.

For those of you who have gotten used to an iPad mounted on the yoke - try taking it off and doing some hand flying. The plane handles way better without the weight on the yoke. After re-doing the panel I ditched every thing yoke-mounted and have been enjoying the plane flying like it is supposed to again. I do use a RAM mount for my cell phone on the vertical bar running from the dash to the roof, with Garmin Pilot running, but all I really use it for is the auto-flight logging feature which makes it easy to log all my flights to Garmin's online logbook. Everything else you need will be in the panel.

I think you may want something like the Tanis cabin heater: https://www.gallagheraviationllc.com/tanis.html Never seen it installed, but from what I understand, you plug in one plug in the oil filler door and it runs both the engine block heater and the cabin heater.

Our plane's overhead light switch has always been tied to the master. They won't come on unless the master is on. I find it really limits their usefulness. I never want them on while flying, it's usually loading/unloading before the master is on or trying to see inside the plane while the hangar door is closed and it's pretty dark in there. Never knew that was an option. I bet a previous owner got tired of bumping the switch and having a dead battery. A timer sounds like a much better solution.

No problems after almost two years here. Works flawlessly.

You can always remove the inner gear doors. Ours have been off for some time, developed some cracking, need to get around to repairs or a new set. Probably costing a knot or two in cruise but who knows. Landed an M20C on grass a couple of times, no big deal. No grass operations in the M20K except for at KOSH where it has done fine. Taxi slow. I would land on a nice grass runway if the mission called for it without too much concern. If I were based there and could be familiar with current conditions I think that would make me feel better about it, not worse. Gopher holes and ruts leading to a prop strike are what I worry about with an unknown turf strip.

You will be paying by the hour, essentially, for the avionics work. They may give you a flat quote but they're basing it on their shop rates. The answer to your question depends on what you're doing. If you're just re-arranging existing old instruments into a standard 6-pack, maybe $2-5k for labor, depending on how many wires they have to extend / cut / remove etc. This makes little sense to do with the cost of modern alternative gauges. If you're going to send the plane in for major panel surgery, you may as well add some solid-state digital AHRS if your plane doesn't have it. If you want to add a couple of GI-275's to replace a legacy King attitude indicator and HSI, which makes a lot more sense while you're at it, you'll still probably pay $2-5k for labor. To add a modern GFC500 autopilot while you're doing it, add another $5-7k for labor to that. To add a GTX-345 or equivalent full-featured ADSB transponder, another $2k or so for labor. With the cost of the new Garmin and Avidyne units coming down lately, it quickly gets hard to justify repairing old King AI's, HSI's, and autopilots, which are getting more expensive and difficult to repair as they break.

An update to this I found during a recent flight: On the G500TXi, you can configure custom "alerts" for CHTs. Go to the engine page, then in the settings menu at the bottom, a few pages in, you can set a custom CHT maximum temperature and enable the alert. Mine was set to 380, which I probably did setting the thing up, but I had not also clicked the button to enable the alert. Once enabled, if CHT on any cylinder goes over your set value, an "A" (for alert) shows up at the bottom of the G500TXi, on any page, and flashes at you. This is very handy and removes the need to check the engine page periodically in cruise to make sure you don't need to adjust your cowl flaps. For me, at least, this removes the need to have highest CHT displayed at all times on the primary engine information system page. As long as there is no alert I know they're all under 380. You can also set alert values for TIT and maybe some other things.

In case this inspires anyone else, here is the placard I now have on the outside of the plane: https://www.ebay.com/itm/123241539555?chn=ps&_trkparms=ispr%3D1&amdata=enc%3A1anv6JMzAQ0Ged6JNGJg6vQ22&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-117182-37290-0&mkcid=2&itemid=123241539555&targetid=1262376588856&device=c&mktype=pla&googleloc=1020526&poi=&campaignid=12873834640&mkgroupid=120270032814&rlsatarget=aud-622027676548:pla-1262376588856&abcId=9300536&merchantid=112038953&gclid=Cj0KCQjw18WKBhCUARIsAFiW7JzsYKUh-O6q8qsqwesVZneJPEDrGVN_6BP7K5sbWOCXMdIyB46X8yYaAt5rEALw_wcB Aircraft Spruce has a slightly different version: https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/cspages/extpower12vdcplac.php?clickkey=8443 A low-cost way to maybe avoid a very expensive mistake.