BrianNC

I posted a few more question concerning the 252/Encore vs Rocket here: http://www.mooneyspace.com/index.cfm?mainaction=posts&forumid=3&threadid=4615&postid=59297&page=1#post59297

I am starting a new thread to compare these two after the 252/Encore thread where I asked for more detail on that plane. I didn't want this question to get lost in the other thread since it's basically stopped. The Bravo was also brought up in that discussion So what I am seeing is basically that the Bravo and 252/Encore are similar, the Bravo being an Encore with a longer body and larger engine, so fuel burn is higher, but similar perfomance number in cruise at altitude. As astelmaszek said, 'never ending climb rate' with the Bravo is an advantage of the larger engine, but at a higher GPH. So now I'm bringing the Rocket into the discussion. Is the Rocket then bascially a shorter body Bravo? Comparing the Rocket to the 252/Encore, would you say about the same performance, but on more gas, just as between the 252/Encore and Bravo? And if one were going to pick between an Encore and Rocket, which way would you go and why? Enough difference in cruise speed and fuel burn to matter? I found this Rocket performance page at Mooneyland. These are some pretty good numbers. 196 KTS at 17.5K feet on only 13.9 GPH which is 55% power. Not bad. Edit: couldn't get the attachment to work. You can find it at the link below if you scroll down. http://www.mooneyland.com/mooney_rocket.htm

jmcanally, I see your only 3 posts on the forum were on this thread. Did you buy the plane or ever get another one?

Thanks for the clarification carusoam. I definitely don't have a wallet in the flight levels, hence the "Flight Level flying aspirations at lowest operating costs" approach. : )

Quote: BrianNC I see you have a Bravo. Could you compare that to the Encore for me? Speed, fuel burn, etc. Same speed basically but higher fuel burn for Bravo? Isn't the Bravo 280hp compared to 220 for the Encore (just trying to remember what I've read off the top of my head here)?

Quote: gjkirsch The Bravo is a long body Mooney (same airframe as Ovation, Acclaim, Eagle, Porsche) with a turbocharged lycoming engine versus Continental and modified car in the rest.

So what is it about the Bravo that it has its own forum? Something 'special' about it?

Quote: WilliamR Excellent. I am at KFFC (Peachtree City) which isn't too bad a drive from my condo in downtown. I'm on the waiting list at PDK and give instruction there routinely. I usually run my airplane at 75% which is about 14 gph at all altitudes. That's no less than 125F ROP EGT on all cylinders. TIT rarely goes above 1525F The engine runs pretty rough LOP which is not uncommon for that series of engine. I've done the LOP test and all cylinders are well balanced (within .3 gals of each other). My guess is that the engine is very sensitive to mag timing and spark plug resistance. I haven't had the time to test that theory though. I am not a fan of running <125F ROP or <25 LOP. My choice, my engine, my money. Others may have other opinions and that's fine. As for speeds, between 3000 and 5000, that's about 155kts +/- 5 kts due to significant variations in ISA. I rarely spend much time at those altitudes even going around the ATL Class B. At 10k, I true between 177 and 180 kts. At 17k, I true about 194 kts. In the summer I usually have to crack the cowl flap a little to keep the hottest CHT below 380. However, it doesn't cost me any noticeable airspeed. The 231 runs a little slower and a little hotter stock. But those can be overcome with some mods to the engine, cowling, etc. Hope that helps.

Quote: WilliamR I think the Mooney has a bad rep with cabin size is due to the geometry of the roof. Basically, the roof is more rounded than a Bonanza. Sort of like a Lear and the old joke how you can tell a Lear Captain from an FO.... by the direction their head tilts. However, with most of the Ks, save the early 231s, the seats are fully articulating and can be set low. I am 5'11" and 200lbs. I simply roll my seat very low, but not to the bottom which still gives better over the panel vision than a long body (they have tall instrument panels). I have yet to hit my head on the ceiling and I have flown in some pretty rough turb. I've had my 252 for 6 years and about 800 hours. The Bravo is unique mainly due to its engine. It is turbo charged, but to keep the valve guides cool, they use hoses to pump oil to the guides, hence the wet head moniker. If you can't find anyone around CLT, PM me. Although I'm in Atlanta, I need to get up to Charlotte soon to visit the in-laws. I fly into JQF every few months.

One other thing, I am kind of a big guy, and everyone talks about the size and comfort of an A36 Bonanza in the cockpit, but the Mooney is actually wider by an inch and a half. It has about 5.5" less height, but I'm 5'10" which isn't overly tall. So why the 'small cabin' talk with the Mooney? Is it still a tighter fit, or is it just a perceived thing?

Thanks for the info guys. That clears it up. Just a few more questions. Is there any other Mooney that compares to that speed with that low of fuel burn? And is this the longest body Mooney made? I think the 231 is shorter, but is the Encore the long body? Also, how does it compare to the Bravo? The only reason I ask is that I see the Bravo has its own forum, so I was wondering if there was something 'special' about that model.

Hi everyone. New here and this is my first post. I'm just beginning to look a Mooneys and find out more about them, and the M20K/252/Encore is kind of confusing to me. Let me quote from a Plane and Pilot article from 2005: "Speed is a mission in itself; in fact, speed is the essence of flying. The faster you go, the faster you go faster, or at least most of us want to. Terry Williams of Fort Worth, Texas, goes faster than the majority of us in his Mooney 252. The amazing thing is that the 252 TSE does it so frugally on 210 hp. A few other turbocharged airplanes can beat the Mooney’s 201-knot cruise, but they do it with 300-plus hp and considerably more than 12.7 gph. This Mooney is known by several names: the M-20K, the Encore and the 252 TSE." First of all, the 252s I see seem to be earlier years than the Encore. The Encores seem to be from about '97-'98 or so. So is there a difference in these planes? It seems I have read that the Encore was a HP upgrade over the 252 and had a greater useful load? I have also read about an Encore 'conversion' for the 252 that ups the HP to 220 and useful load by a couple of hundred pounds. Also, is it actually possible to go 200KTS at 12.7GPH as the article said? Is this model a good choice for a Mooney? If someone would straighten this all out for me I would appreciate it. : )