Yearly maintenance cost for Mooney Bravo versus 252

[manoflamancha]

I'm looking at older Mooney Bravo since they are a great buy right now. Just wanted to get a ball park figure from Bravo owners on how much to budget for operating costs including maintenance, fuel and MX in comparison to 252 and Rocket.

Thanks,

Scott

[rocketman]

I own a Bravo and Rocket - similar but yet different planes. Your question depends on their upkeep, maintenance, hours, corrosion, history, avionics, previous accidents, etc. Its tough to compare apples to oranges but in reality they are fairly similar planes compared to my 201. Both have fairly complex turbochargers but both dependable with good maintenance histories. They both burn about the same fuel flow per HP but the rocket goes a little faster since its a smaller plane. Honestly, the Rocket is a very fun plane to fly, kind of like driving a NASCAR while the Bravo is like driving a supercharged Suburban. Both will get you there in short order but their different in acceleration, speed and performance. 

 

As far as budgeting for future upkeep, costs and maintenance, thats a variable that nobody can answer her since it depends on the condition of the plane you are buying, Given everything being equal, I would think that your variables you mention would be about equal as well. 

 

As far as the 252, I never owned one so I am not help there. 

[manoflamancha]

Thanks Rocketman, indeed you are lucky to own both hot rods. I'm looking to do a long trip over mountains this summer so either will get me there and back. Rockets are selling 110-150k range from what I'm seeing and Bravos 150-250k so the Rocket less popular. Does Rocket engineering still provide decent support and parts?

[rocketman]

Rocket Engineering is still in business and has excellent support. Still has parts available. I replaced my entire exhaust system a few year ago which they had several systems on the shelf. They can make most any part necessary specific to the Rocket if necessary. 

[BobAustin]

Rocket engineering has support for my Missile as well.  They are very responsive. 

[Z W]

I do not think the operating / maintenance costs are really much different.  The Bravo burns more fuel than the 252, but goes faster,  so cost per mile is pretty similar. The 252 is more efficient by a bit.

 

I suspect the price difference you note has more to do with the ages of the airframe than anything else.  Bravos are much newer than any Rocket or 252. The Rocket also seems to take a slight price hit because of the stigma of being a modded plane,  even though its reputation is great. I personally think that makes them a great value. 

 

Your cost of ownership is going to vary more between individual planes than it does between models.  A good pre buy is essential. 

[Danb]

As previously stated they are similar, you will need to change the donuts in the landing gears maybe every 3-4 yrs due to the heavier engine. I also had 2 J models most of the frame is similar in upkeep. Like all turbos pay strict attention to temps. Which will pay off in the long run. I assume a major purchase difference will be in avionics, which is all across the board, it would be more cost effective to try and buy one that has most of the avionics you want vs. installing them new. The rocket is more apt to be able to run LOP. Which is unlikely in the Bravo. A quality engine monitoring system is a must in order to pay strict attention to the temps. As is a great pre-purchase inspection. Lastly study the logs for any insight re. Same...good luck. Both are quality machines and if that's what your mission calls for.

[gjkirsch]

I have owned two Bravos and two 231's.  Assuming the 2 alternator 252, I do not think there will be any significant dfference in maintenance costs.  The biggest difference in operating expenses was (for me) a 19GPH fuel burn versus a 13GPH burn for about 20 knots in speed.  If FIKI is important to you, they are easier to find in Bravos.  

[aaronk25]

Given that the Rocket is available I don't think I would go with a 252. If a person is going to have 6 cylinders and a turbo, controller waste gate ect.....to take care of why not have larger components? I guess the rocket has the non-stock status so that may scare some but they do a awesome job supporting there conversion.

Also you can always pull power back and get to close to 252 fuel burns......or drop the hammer and get there fast..

[carusoam]

(1) some people prefer the long body

(2) some people prefer the factory built original. I do now...

(3) some people prefer the higher output of the IO550 for shorter take offs.

(4) Rocket Engineering is one of the most reputable solution providers for this type of "mod".

Development of the coolest plane in GA...

231-> Rocket->252->Bravo->Acclaim->Charlie

Charlie is the next probable evolutionary step to the TN'd Long Body. The "fully" developed 310hp TNIO550(n) has been installed in other planes (SR22) over the last few years.

All are well developed planes that have survived the years based on what they deliver. The newer ones do it better.

Check the take off distance on each model for your field. The Bravo has a notable longer ground roll than the Acclaim

Which one is right for your mission?

I like the guys who are knowledgable enough to not be concerned about the factory built nature of the plane. Some guys build there own planes...

I'm a bit leery of the guys that don't know there might be a difference. There can be a very steep learning curve. Of course, your question was 252 vs. Bravo.... Not 262?

Best regards,

-a-

[manoflamancha]

What's a 262?

[Z W]

A 262 is a 231 that somebody put a 252 engine on by STC.  Originally developed by ModWorks.  Carries the same "mod" stigma as the Rocket.  Maybe a worse stigma, because Modworks went under.  Luckily they use all the same parts as the 252s, except for I think the voltage regulators, so parts are not an issue.  They are cheaper than a 252, partly because many people don't want to buy a plane that has a new engine STC'd onto it.  I fly one.

 

I find it somewhat interesting that while this is a major concern with Mooneys, and reflected in price, the opposite seems to be true for Bonanzas and Cessnas.  Old models that rolled out of the factory with small engines get an IO-550 put on the front and everybody wants the plane, suddenly it's priced like the newer models with 300 HP.

 

Personally I don't have a problem with a modded plane (obviously).  I would also fly a Rocket or an experimental, after giving it a careful look over.  Others prefer factory engineering. The market prices accordingly.

[manoflamancha]

Agree since tons of Cessna and Bonanza drivers mod the hell out of their planes with STCs out the wazoo. Only issue that I've heard with the Rocket versus Bravo is the low prop clearance of 6 inches in the Rocket versus 12 inches prop clearance in the Bravo which can make taxiing and landing a bit more challenging.

[FlyDave]

I went from a J to a Bravo last December.

Differences from the mid to long body I really like:

• The instrument panel has room for 3 rows of 3.125" instruments. This provides an abundance of panel space - Excellent!
• I love the extra room in the baggage area except when I forget to grab the hood for IFR practice. I keep it on the hat shelf and there is almost no way I can get to it if I've forgotten it.
• Back seat passengers have more leg room - something like 6 inches if I remember correctly

Additional differences:

• The Rocket engine has a TBO of 1,600 hours. The Bravo has a TBO of 2,000 hours and most make TBO if you don't run it hot.
• The long body Bravo is a bit better in turbulence.
• Bravo standard fuel is 89 gallons but you can put ~100 gallons if you fill it up to the top of the filler neck. If a rocket doesn't have long range tanks you will only have 76 gallons.
• Built in oxygen - some of the older 231's that were converted didn't have built in oxygen
• There are differences between the 231 and 252 airframes - investigate these if considering a 231 converted rocket
• The rocket can be flown faster at all altitudes (I think as much as 20 KTAS).
• The rocket engine can be flown LOP so you can save considerable money on fuel.

Dave

[AndyFromCB]

Budget $30K a year to fly 100 hours. Some years will be more, some years will be less, but I'd say $30K is pretty decent number. Have another $65K laying around for when you need a new engine, exhaust and turbo...

[AndyFromCB]

I calculated about $20K for 100 hours and $26K for 200 in a J model.  I know this is for the Bravo, but does that sound about right for the J?

 

Cheers

 

I would say, almost right, however, you cannot just count fuel for the other 100 hours. I'd say fuel and half would be more like it once you move past fixed expenses. Things will break and need maintenance, oil will have to be changed and topped off, etc...