252 or Bravo - what to do?

[Skywarrior]

Hello, all -

I am in the throes of deciding on my first Mooney - first airplane period, in fact.

I have found a decent '87 252, but also found a decent '91 Bravo. The Bravo is $30K more than the 252, but has a G430 and the powerplant has only ~300 hours on it. DH: none.

The 252 is a bit older, has a mid-life engine, and no fancy dashboard geegaws. DH: 1 gear-up.

I would love to get y'all's input on which is a better purchase for a person whose 75% mission is me and the wifelet, min. bags, 500 miles.

Purchase price is not a big issue, or I would have just snapped up the 252. I'm trying to achieve greatest long-term value & satisfaction.

Continental vs. Lycoming? Long-body vs. not-quite-as-long-body? Thirsty engine vs. not-so-thirsty engine? And why do you feel that way? (etc., etc.)

Thanx,

Chuck

[Mcstealth]

As the 252 is regarded by many as Mooneys top plane, and it fits your mission, and you will have money left over to upgrade the panel as you wish, and the d/h does not bug you, and it is only four years different in age.........

Nah. Go Bravo. Money for gas is not an issue for you as is the up keep for that big beauty of an engine, the panel is okay right now so no waiting for the avionics shop, your wifelet will like the airliner feel of the Bravo more.

Bravo.

David

[KSMooniac]

I've flown neither, but I would prefer the 252 over the Bravo primarily for the powerplant.  I'd rather have the TSIO-360 vs. the TIO-540 any day.  A 500 mile trip will make the turbo worthwhile, even if you're not flying in/over mountains, too, so no need to argue turbo vs. non-turbo IMO.  You might consider winter flying...based in GA perhaps not a huge deal unless your 500 mile trip is going north, year-round.  You can get known-ice TKS with the Bravo, but not with the 252 as far as I know.  (The M20K Encore has the option though)

I tend to favor efficient speed, and the 252 should do much better than the Bravo, albeit at a slightly slower cruise speed.

Prices on both are currently depressed enough that you can put some upgrades in the panel and not get upside-down unless the market never recovers.  If/when fuel prices shoot up again, I would expect the 252 demand/price to go up, or at least not drop, relative to an M20M.

A gear-up damage history is very likely a non-issue so long as the repairs and documentation were done properly.  If it was done many years ago, then very likely no deduction on price either.  If it was done within the last few years, then perhaps you can negotiate a deduction on the purchase.

At the end of the day, it would be hard to go wrong with either choice!

[donshapansky]

Having purchased several aircraft over the past years, one thing I have learned, buy the best airplane you can afford with all the avionics you want already installed, it is more economical every time and more time spent flying than travelling to pick-up the airplane from the nest phase of upgrades, then going back for more tweaks after .

I have a 252 Rocket that was aquired 2 yrs ago this month, it is a great airframe. The Bravo was on my short list, due to a poor selection when I was ready I didn't aquire one. TKS is valuable if you are going to fly in fall, winter or spring on a must go basis, it is available on both models certified for known ice, there is a payload and speed penalty. 100 lbs looms large on the weekend you want to take a couple with you and the cruise penalty is 8 -10 kts. make sure you really need that feature.

I have flown 600 hrs in 24 mos. with next to no scrubbed flights due to no TKS, if speed is your thing with tremendous climb (1700'/min at 120kts in std conditions) a Rocket outdoes the Bravo big time in fact an Acclaim has a hard staying with my Rocket and they have less usefull load than I have at 954 lbs. The Rocket gets an increase (in the 252 at least) to 3200lbs from 2900 lbs on the 252 stock.

 

Regards: Enjoy the chase, do lots of research and I would be happy to help

Don Shapansky

[RHHolt]

Tough choice. I have a 252 and enjoy it. Real world numbers are 12.1 g/hr at 73% power at 180 kts. true above 15k ft. Even faster above 17k. I am told that the Bravo does 190-200 kts. at 19 g/hr. Faster, true, but at a considerable cost.

 

If money is not object, get the Bravo. If it is, take a look at your typical flight profile and compare costs.

[FoxMike]

Over the past 35 yrs. I have owned two E models and a T210.  I bought a Bravo six years ago for the extra room.  The 252 gets more miles to the gallon and goes about the same speed.  I got one with factory TKS which I like when it is messy but I pay a significant performance price for the peace of mind.  I still own and enjoy my Bravo.  Which to buy?  I think it comes down to room or efficiency.  Good Luck.

Walt

[Piloto]

Go with the Bravo. It has a much larger baggage area, no need to fold down seats if more space is needed. It also has a bigger instrument panel and dual batteries. You will have an airframe that is in current production vs the 252. It also carries more fuel.

José

 

[carusoam]

Try them both on for size...

I vote for the Long Body.  (I might be slightly biased)

Super comfortable, plenty of space and it comes with the most modern IFR GPS comm available today.

Make sure the G430 is Waas upgraded or expect an additional expense for the upgrade.

[blacknchrome]

Go with the Bravo. 

Many benefits worth the 30K - first off, it's newer - and that means every part in the airplane is newer.  I think that's an advantage. 

The lower time engine and updated panel is a plus too.  And, it's a long-body - which gives you a larger airplane with no loss in speed. 

I will say the exact opposite of KSMooniac, respectfully.  I would buy it for the Lycoming - it seems that a huge majority of the turbo, 6 cylinder Continentals need fairly significant work around or before 1000 hours.  The Lycoming 540 seems to have fewer issues, and in talking to guys like Maxwell and All American, they see lots of Bravos at or OVER TBO without any problem. 

Yes, you will burn more fuel,. but the Bravos are beautiful, fast, capable airplanes.

[roundout]

Bravo, for all the reasons everybody else who said Bravo listed. TSIO-540 > TSIO-360, plain and simple. 

[RJBrown]

Are you looking at N800MS ? I had it under contract Jan of 09. US aircraft the MSC in Denton did the pre buy. At the time it had quite a squawk list. I would have bought it had the seller honored the contract. I talked to the shop that did the OH 10 plus years ago and felt good about the "bones" of the plane. If you have not seen it up close you need to. Looks MUCH better in pictures. I think it spent a lot of time soaking up the California sunshine collecting "paper" annuals, before the current owners bought it. They bought it with a current annual and were quite surprised by what US found.

[stevetuck]

I have 4,300 hours flying mostly Mooneys.  I flew 10 years in a stock J model that we added TKS. Then I flew 7 years in a Mooney Missile (IO-550 Continental at 300 hp on a J model frame).  I have one year in a Bravo with TKS.  The longer airframe makes landing so very simple although the J model with the big engine just took a little practice to get used to.  The big advantage to me of the Bravo is the flat rated Lycoming engine.  That engine never feels pushed and delivers great performance.  Eventhough mine is fairly used up at 1840 hours, it still has great performance and a solid feel. It does burn more gas but the airliner feel - almost turbine like steadyness of the big Lycoming - is worth the trade in my opinion.  I like the Bravo and all the redundency of the systems in the Bravo more than any of my other Mooneys.

[msw]

I am currently pondering the same decision, so the previous info has been very helpful.  Does anyone have - or care to share - their yearly maintenance costs, averaged over several years, for a 252 vs. a Bravo?  I am curious if one is generally considered more expensive as far as maintenance goes (averaged over a few years) vs. the other?