Looking for opinions on this 252

[Jetlag]

That's a nice looking plane but the useful load is too low.  I was thinking of a 252 and doing a gross weight increase.

[Z W]

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.

[chrisk]

I've had my 231 for two years and never had anyone in my back seat.  -So I agree the useful load with fuel is not that big of a deal in most cases.  I do recall looking at a 252 some years ago that had a useful load of around 830 lbs, and it also had 106 gallon long range tanks.  With full fuel  (636 lbs of fuel),  it became a one person, no luggage plane. --Or a really good excuse to loose 15 lbs.

[Jetlag]

I want to be able to fly 750NM with reserves and carry 2 adults with some cargo.

[PMcClure]

I want to be able to fly 750NM with reserves and carry 2 adults with some cargo.

I am able to do this easily in my Ovation. 

[chrisk]

I want to be able to fly 750NM with reserves and carry 2 adults with some cargo.

 

For ball park pre-planning, I use 0 wind, 150 kts and 12 gph.  The actual plan on the day of is different of course.   As an example I flew between KGTU and KFLG earlier this year (around 750 NM).   My time to KFLG was 5.5 hours.  The return trip was 4 hours.      --Headwinds and deviations on the way there  http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N9821P/history/20140829/1814Z/KGTU/KFLG  and a small tail wind on the way back  http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N9821P/history/20140831/2315Z/KFLG/KGTU .   Both ways I took a full load of fuel (75 gal), my wife and all of her stuff.  --Even on the long trip west, I landed with about 20 gal remaining.

[ArtVandelay]

I want to be able to fly 750NM with reserves and carry 2 adults with some cargo.

You can do that in a J, if you don't need high altitude

[Jetlag]

I need a turbo.  I live out west and will be regularly flying to southeast Alaska.  I like the 252 for the economy and think with a gross weight increase it would be a perfect plane.  I'm also considering a Bravo.

[Z W]

I want to be able to fly 750NM with reserves and carry 2 adults with some cargo.

 

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.

[231MJ]

It's a good looking plane and perhaps you just need to have the patience to do the up-grades over time rather than all it once.  Even the best maintained airplane can have sudden, unexpected expensive issues, like we have all experienced.  I also think the 252 is going to hold it's value for a while to come (might even go up when you consider what a new Mooney costs).  I say BUY IT!

[kortopates]

I want to be able to fly 750NM with reserves and carry 2 adults with some cargo.

You can certainly easily do this in 252, one of my longest legs was KMYF (San Diego)-KERV (Kerville) at 939 mi, But frankly I hate long legs like that and could only pull that off flying solo, not because of weight but for pax comfort. Even a 633 nm leg from KMYF-MMLP Lap Paz is about our limit for comfort at 3:34 in the air. 

 

I need a turbo.  I live out west and will be regularly flying to southeast Alaska.  I like the 252 for the economy and think with a gross weight increase it would be a perfect plane.  I'm also considering a Bravo.

The 252 is ideal for trips like this to SE Alaska and beyond. Couldn't of made it without the Turbo or without a long weather delay, as we had to climb to FL200 to get above the weather (icing) and fly in the sunshine from Bellingham to Ketchikan. And that was only a 3 hr flight. But since we were there for the beautiful scenery on subsequent leg from Sitka to Homer we flew low from 6-10K hoping to find an altitude we could at least be between layers and spent all but the start and end of that in solid rainy IMC at a cost of an extra 1/2 hr of flight time from staying low and never did get any scenery till abeam Anchorage,area but we headed for Homer on that leg. Those three legs with approx distances, and actual times and fuel are below to give an idea of 252 capabilities for Southern Alaska. So really no need to do 4-5 hr legs flying to SE Alaska. 

 

BLI-PAKT  520nm  3:00 48 Gal

PAKT-PKSI  160 nm 1:27 22 Gal

PKSI-PAHO  564nm  3:30 48 Gal

 

As I am sure you are aware, the turbo gives you lots of options over a NA aircraft and the 252 excels at this with a critical altitude of 23K, service ceiling of 28K powered with the complete turbo system of the MB that runs very efficiently in the flight levels and includes dual alternators, electric standby vacuum, built-in O2, speed brakes etc.  

[N252WD]

My 252 from Houston to Denver 4-5 hours between 8-12k w/ always a headwind (15-50kts.) But coming home right around 3-4 hours. Burning around 10-12 gph.

[Av8]

Stack of random comments:

Lots of risk and unknown in a plane not flown regularly. Corrosion in the engine, turbo.

Gyros and soft parts don't do well sitting still.

Check serial num and last O/H of all accessories and steam gauges. As example if attitude indicator has low SN could cost 5k to replace

Has she been hanga red or outdoors, where?

Would Definatley want to talk to seller, mech who did last annual and see it with own eyes.

This one is a project - you want to restore a plane or fly one

lots of better shape 252s listed around 175 that are likely lower risk/better value.

[urbanti]

FWIW, if you are looking at trainers or vfr budget cruisers, you can more plausibly make the argument that you don't need modern avionics to make the airplane competitive in the market. Buyers in that market segment may not be IFR rated and may just want to bomb around VFR on the weekends. They also may be so cash-constrained that buying a less-well-equipped plane gets them into the market.

However, if you look at the people who are shopping for $125k + airplanes, they have bigger budgets are generally sophisticated pilots who fly want to fly IFR LPV approaches and they are looking for updated avionics.

Owners of higher performance retracts who put off updating the avionics to save money may have to deal with low-ball offers when they go to sell.

Best

Tim