Z W

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.

I fly one. Good conversion. Parts are no problem. All from a 231 or 252 except for the #2 alternator and the voltage regulators, which are common parts I think shared with some Cessna 172's. Flies just like a 252. They are a great value purchased on the open market. Doing the conversion on a 231 no longer makes any economic sense.

To answer your original question, no, I do not believe there is any direct correlation between level of precipitation and thickness of the cloud deck. I've taken off into 500 ft ceilings, no rain, and not broken out until 9,000 ft. I've also flown VFR in moderate precipitation where I can see blue sky in holes in the cloud deck above, probably 500-1000 ft thick. You've gotten good advice on how to get an idea of cloud thickness. I also like to open up the map on Garmin Pilot (used to do the same on Foreflight) and have it show ceiling heights for my entire route on the map. That gives you a good idea of how widespread any low IFR conditions are, and whether you can plan to file and remain mostly under the cloud deck. If the ceilings are too low for that, I look at the Area Forecast (not the TAFs) and file above the forecasted tops. If I can get a tops PIREP that is recent I consider that much better than the Area forecast. All of that being said, if it's just clouds and light or moderate rain, it should not be a big deal to you if you get it slightly wrong and end up getting some actual time. It's good practice, and as far as I've found, practice is the only way to get comfortable with it. I try to do that sometimes on flights with high ceilings, so I know an approach won't be required, and I can always descend down out of the clouds if needed. Stay away from ice, and anything red on NEXRAD, and you should have a safe flight.

While I wouldn't call the K underpowered, it's got a pretty long takeoff roll. Longer than the C model I used to have. It might actually be the longest takeoff roll of the Mooney fleet. Earlier models were lighter. Later models got more horsepower. It flies fine at max gross. It just flies better a couple hundred pounds lighter. On a cold day and a 5000 ft runway, you might not be able to tell. On a hot day at my typical 4000 ft runway with 50+ ft trees on each end, I can. I also have a heavy K model with only 875 of useful load. That's probably got something to do with it. It's plenty to get the mission completed, but not to carry around a lot of extra gas.

For a time I flew regularly with over 75 gallons on board. In my K 75 gallons is full mains. 105 gallons is full extended range tanks too. I figured fuel left at the pump is no use to me. May as well have a 5 hour reserve if the plane can carry it and be under gross. When solo I can fill the all the tanks and have just enough gross weight for me and a bag. That's about 8 hours of fuel. I have since decided the plane performs much better a couple hundred pounds under gross. Less runway used on takeoff and landing. Easier to grease landings. Better rate of climb. It feels safer with the extra performance than with the extra fuel. So now I keep just a 1.5 hour fuel reserve in the plane in the hangar. Before each trip I add just enough for the trip. Sometimes an extra hour of fuel for headwinds, ifr conditions, or if the load is light. Using this method I have had little or no use for the extended tanks in quite a while. I do plan stops every 3-4 hours for comfort. Your experience may vary.

I have long range tanks. They are rarely useful. I don't think I've used their capacity in about two years. I would not pay $6500 for them. I would bet this is a sunk cost for you for resale purposes. If I ever get around to flying to Alaska or thar British Virgin Islands, I'll be glad they're there.

I'm no physician, but I suspect that holding your breath results in your body continuing to process oxygen held in your lungs. When you continue to breath air that contains no oxygen, you are expelling that good oxygen. Compare it to breathing out all of your air, and then going underwater. I doubt you would make it 5 minutes. Pretty sure I wouldn't. I agree that 6 to 9 seconds sounds extreme. But what do I know? Maybe there are other factors. I also hope somebody with some medical knowledge can chime in.

Most piston single aircraft are not regularly flown over about FL200. I would bet that most are flown at FL180 or below almost all of the time. Above FL180 your useful time of consciousness declines sharply: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_useful_consciousness Altitude in Flight level Time of Useful Consciousness FL 150 30 min or more FL 180 20 to 30 min FL 220 5-10 min FL 250 3 to 6 min FL 280 2.5 to 3 mins FL 300 1 to 3 mins FL 350 30 sec to 60 sec FL 400 15 to 20 sec FL 430 9 to 15 sec FL 500 and above 6 to 9 sec As you can see, at FL220, you've only got 5 or 10 minutes of consciousness if you develop a problem with your O2, vs 20-30 minutes at FL180. It gets worse as you go up. In a GA single, you generally only have one O2 system and one pilot. No redundancy. In theory you could carry a back-up tank, but that's a lot of hassle, and there's no warning built in to tell you to switch to your backup, unlike loss of pressurization in a larger aircraft. One kinked line or problem with your O2 delivery and you can be lights out pretty quick. Also, in my experience, there isn't much weather that can't be topped at FL180 that you're going to top by going to FL200 or FL220. I think what many of us do is stop at FL180 and stick to the cannulas. They're more comfortable anyways.

Good points. I do understand it's hard to tell whether I should listen to you vs. some other random stranger on the internet. I've seen enough of your posts around that I actually give them great credit. However, I disagree that anything can't be learned in a forum, or that you have to attend a formal, structured educational course to learn these things. Data speaks for itself. The source is not important. Some people require a structured environment to learn, but not everyone. Again, not knocking the course here. Would like to take it someday, etc... I can understand the theory that high ICPs leads to increased failure rates, and that ICP's are highest at peak to 50 ROP. I remain unconvinced that higher ICPs actually result in a statistically measurable increase in failure rates. I don't care what my ICPs are, unless they result in the big fan going quiet in fewer hours than if I had lower ICPs. I am with you on believing that data is not available because there are too many other factors with cylinder and engine life. If you want to be realistic about these things, I bet gear-ups, A&P screw-ups, and zero-fuel off-airport landings destroy far more engines, statistically, than any mixture setting.

Don't be scared of the useful load. That 78 gallons of fuel at a 12 GPH (high speed cruise) setting will take you 6.5 hours of flight time at about 170 knots. In reality, you'll fly with half tanks most of the time, in my experience. 40-50 gallons is the sweet spot for fuel in a 252. 3.5 hours plus reserve, with 3 adults on board. Double-check the useful load math. My plane has the 105 gallon extended tanks and 875 useful load, which is one of the lowest useful loads I've seen. With the tanks full, it's still 266 lbs of people and baggage. Works for me and my bags. And that's about 9 hours of fuel... It looks like a very capable well-equipped aircraft. The price might be a little optimistic. But you can't blame him for trying. Before you plan to do paint and interior, consider the downtime associated with it. Plan on a month for each. Don't believe the shops when they tell you otherwise. Consider logistics of getting it to and from the shops. You'll be pleasantly surprised if I'm wrong about how long it takes. If I were buying right now, I would take a hard look at Rocket conversions. I think they are a better value than the 252's. They are cheaper, climb better, and go faster. That's if you are comfortable with the stigma of a "mod" plane. Just my opinion.

The "unusual" comment comes from what my A&P told me, so take it with a grain of salt. We have a factory intercooler setup that was pretty much unheard-of at the time it came out in the 80's. It's one of the most modern turbo designs available in the older fleet. We also have the automatic wastegate, and a turbo controller that regulates MP separately from the wastegate. Basically it's a very complicated system that makes it to where you just push the black throttle knob all the way in and get the power you want without overboosting, up to wherever our critical altitude is in the 20's. I know because our turbo controller went bad and we replaced most of the rest of the system before we figured out what was causing the problem, which was MP fluctuations at any power setting that used the turbo for boost. I've also been told by two A&P's that the fuel delivery system on our engine is unusual. It's a very complicated spider. It's supposed to be very efficient at keeping fuel flow balanced, even without GAMI's. I do agree about the lack of small block information. I do have to crack the cowl flaps about 1/4 or 1/3 in cruise at 2500/28"/11.5 GPH. Sometimes as much as 1/2 on hot days down low. That puts them in the middle of where they're marked "cruise" on the indicator. I just crack them enough to keep my highest CHT under 380. I do not notice a significant speed loss from doing that, although I'm probably losing 1-2 knots. You are correct, it's a 75% power setting. I can keep the cowl flaps closed all the way (where it says "descent" on the indicator) running 20 degrees LOP, and still have CHT's under 350 usually. But I get the roughness. I'll have to look into Tempest Fine Wires.

Scott, No offense intended. Seriously. But some version of your post appears in every LOP/ROP thread on the internet. It adds zero useful information to the discussion, beyond the fact that there is a really good live course available. It's one of the things that I find frustrating about trying to find good information. If you attended the course, can you tell us why a lot of our engines are rough at 20-30 degrees LOP TIT? My EGTs all peak at almost exactly the same time. My engine has GAMI's. Can you tell us how many hours we can expect to lose on TBO, on average, if we run our engines at peak TIT, instead of 100+ ROP? Or how many hours we can expect to lose between overhaul/replacement of cylinders? Or how many hours we lose, on average, between catastrophic in-flight engine failures? Can you tell us, for certain, if we should base our ROP/LOP measurement off of peak TIT, or the last EGT to peak? I submit that's the kind of information we need to be able to make an informed decision about where to set the red knob. I don't mean to bash the APS course. I have not been able to attend it, and I would like to. I've read posts by the guys that put it on, and they seem knowledgeable. When life slows down a bit (ha ha) I plan to do it. Right after I've gotten my tailwheel endorsement, seaplane rating, glider rating, aerobatic course, etc. done... For now, I have to settle for what some people will post on internet forums.