252 vs 305 vs Bravo

[jcollier]

I'm sure this is a horse that has been beat to death, multiple times.

However, when considering traveling across the country (i.e. CA to TN to FL to CA) multiple times per year (2-5 times per year). In your opinion, what is the better cross-country traveler?  This is personal and not for business, therefore there are no time constraints.  In other words, I wouldn't be required to leave one day vs the next, so I could wait for weather to clear. 

It is strictly myself and my bride, so baggage "shouldn't", I repeat "shouldn't" be an issue.  LOL  

I'm not looking for folks to explain to me "how I should fly commercial" or "why would you do that" answers, I'm more looking for legitimate insight into the 305 vs 252 vs Bravo.  Comfort, speed, weather, fuel burns, etc...  If your options were 252 vs 305 vs Bravo, what would you choose, and why?

Thanks for your time, in advance!

 

Joshua

Edited February 4, 2016 by jcollier

[KSMooniac]

Welcome.

There isn't a wrong choice among the 3 you listed.  The 252 and Bravo will have the removable rear seats, so you can quickly convert to 2 + 2 for maximum baggage capability, and the 305 Rocket might if it is a late enough model.  The 252 will likely be a little more efficient/lower fuel burn over a total trip due to lower weight, but I suspect that will be marginal on a very long trip.  The Bravo and Rocket will be much faster.  All 3 will have similar ability to climb above a lot of weather, but not all.  You might find TKS on any of them.  To get the "most" out of them, you'll have to use oxygen and your bride will have to as well.  Is she on board with that?  If not, consider an Ovation or Eagle.

The biggest consideration obviously comes down to the engine... are you a Continental fan or Lycoming fan?  Do you want to run LOP or not?  Anecdotal stories indicate that many Bravos will not run LOP despite lots of fiddling.  The -360 of the 252 and the -520 of the Rocket can both run LOP if everything is setup well, and thus can be run more efficiently than the Bravo running ROP.  

After the engine differences, the next biggest differentiation will be age of airframe and the amenities that come with the newer models.  You can get a G1000 in a Bravo if you wish, but not the others.  I wouldn't want a G1000 bird, personally.  My favorite choice of the 3 might be a late model K (Encore version) or a 252 that has been converted to an Encore...still has the efficiency of the smaller engine and a great useful load.  There aren't many of these out there, though.

At the end of the day, all 3 will work well.  The usual advice then applies (hashed out here multiple times, so use the search function) to buy the best airframe you can find with the most options/equipment that you ultimately want.  It is always cheaper to buy one that has been upgraded vs. doing it yourself.  

[kortopates]

There is no right or wrong answer - this is a totally personal question and your choice is probably going to be more up to how much money you want to spend on the initial acquisition and for your hourly expenses period. The only really hard decision point perhaps is turbo vs normally aspirated; then it's just a matter of how much you want to spend. Vintage Mooneys have been flying across the country since they came out of the factory so it comes back to what's the right choice for you. I fly a 252 and although I could tell you about its great capabilities while being perhaps the most efficient Mooney ever built instead I am going to suggest you spend some time learning about their individual capabilities and you decide what is worth the money to you. For example, just because the plane can fly in the flight levels doesn't mean the pilot is going to utilize those capabilities.

Without specific questions though all you will hear, IMO, will amount to how what every owner is flying is the best choice. Perhaps it is for them, but you aren't them.

Happy hunting.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[carusoam]

1) More power is better... Shorter T/O faster climb.

2) More power at altitude is better...  Ultimate speedsters.

3) More power with FIKI at altitude is best...  Great for IFR trips in the cold

4) My family doesn't care for O2 personal hardware.  We went N/A IO550, no FIKI.

5) Modern Continental engines have balanced smooth curved intakes.  Best for LOP through a range of power settings.

6) Ultimate Mooney would be a 310hp TN'd FIKI Acclaim replete with air conditioning...

How does that sound?

Best regards,

-a-

[mike_elliott]

A good question for RocketMan to answer, he has a Bravo and a Rocket (and a 201 and some off brand thing)

[jcollier]

Wow!  Thank you guys for your replies.  I really appreciate your input.  

My bride is a flight nurse and loves to fly as well.  Using O2 will not be a issue for either of us.  

Does anyone think that parts or maintenance for a 305 rocket be an issue in the near future?  I had read somewhere that the rocket conversion is getting older and they don't make it anymore, therefore they suggested/implied that it would be a dying bird.  

Carusoam: I think that sounds, perfect for everything except my wallet!  lol

Kortopates: From my understanding, a 305 Rocket is a 252 converted to a 305 hp as well as a couple other upgrades.  Is that correct?

KSmooniac:  Thanks so much for your very thorough reply.  It was very insightful for me.  At this point, I haven't really dug into the Cont vs Lycoming issue.  I'm sure there are arguments for each side.  I will dig around and see what I can get myself into.

Edited February 4, 2016 by jcollier

[carusoam]

Best photos of a curvaceous Continental intake on a Mooney can be found on another MS thread, here...

 

This one happens to have a pair of snails and related inter cooling hardware.  But it is the nice curvy intake that allows the balanced air flow at various MPs.

I think Eric's Acclaim is still for sale.

Best regards,

-a-

[Openwheeler3]

Joshua,

I agree with the comments above. All are great airplanes but each different model has unique considerations for you to research, like useful load, speed vs range, age, luggage space, FIKI vs not, etc.. 

To answer your latest question, both 231s and 252s were used in rocket conversions. Additionally, even though Rocket Engineering no longer does conversions, they still support the 305. 

[jcollier]

Carusoam: That is an incredible plane!  Wow!.  Very nice. Thank you.

Openwheeler3: I like the roughly 1100lbs for the 305, really like the speed and range seems good with the additional long range tanks.  I don't necessarily think I would need the FIKI, even though, it would be nice.  Thank you for your reply, I didn't know they are still supporting it.  That makes me lean a bit more toward the 305 rocket. 

[Hank]

Rocket is also still supporting the Missile conversion, an IO550 mounted into a J model (I think; it may be an IO520, either way it's a non-turbo little brother to the Rocket). There are some Missile owners here, too.

[kortopates]

1 hour ago, jcollier said:

Kortopates: From my understanding, a 305 Rocket is a 252 converted to a 305 hp as well as a couple other upgrades.  Is that correct?

As openwheeler stated, the Rocket conversion was done on both 231 and 252 airframes which means a 231 rocket conversion will have the 231 cowl with the manual 3 position cowl flaps and a 12v system and I believe limited to a single alternator (but not absolutely sure except the 231's engine and therefore airframe wiring only supported one alternator), The 252 airframe on the other hand includes infinitely adjustable electric cowl flaps which translate into far less speed penalty for opening them as well as dual alternators as an option.  The 252 airframe includes many other airframe improvements to look at including rear bucket seats that fold down to provide flat cargo space and included as standard most  of the options that were available to 231s' but not placed in every plane including: Speed Brakes, Built-in O2, Standby electric Vacuum system, and Electrically heated prop. Thus not all rockets were created equal. Also consider that going the STC's engine on the Rocket  their are many drawbacks that come with it since Rocket didn't do the same kind of engineering for it Mooney does. For example when Mooney increased gross weight on the K for the Encore variant, and its only eligible as retrofit on the 252, they also changed the brakes from single puck to double puck and changed out the control balance weights to improve/maintain flutter resistance for the increased weight. Rocket Engineering just increased the MTOW without changes other than addressing the heavy nose CG by adding a second battery in the back to improve the CG. Parts for the Continental engine are not a concern, but what is the much shorter TBO time which will actually vary depending on if it is a Continental reman since they can increase it to 1600 IIRC.  

Edited February 4, 2016 by kortopates

[gsengle]

I'm an Ovation owner, but if I were going turbo today, with your two person mission, I'd go 252/Encore. Along with the ovation, one of the best models ever built imho. Way more fuel efficient than the thirsty Bravo/Lyc which appeals to me... The Encore is pretty young airframe still and is the result of lots of refinement.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[carusoam]

Missile is an IO550A.  300 NA hp in a J airframe.  For more technical details, Seth is our resident Missile Man...

Rocket Engineering is alive and well.  Much of the work they pioneered, later moved into Mooney Production.  The latest piece of work they did was the 310 hp engine with TopProp that is installed in the current Ovation.  The STC is currently owned by Mooney.

RE supports the bits and pieces related to their systems.  The engines are commercially available and are normal OH candidates.

Some people prefer only factory built airplanes.  Rocket engineering does a factory like conversion with complete engineering and documentation.  

Full disclosure: I went with a 310hp IO550N when it was time to OH the engine.  The extra HP comes from 200 more rpm for 2700 rpm max.  Great for getting off the ground and climbing.

I'm only a PP, not a used plane sales guy.  But if you buy Eric's plane you both can buy me a cup of coffee! 

Best regards,

-a-

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, carusoam said:

1) More power is better... Shorter T/O faster climb.

2) More power at altitude is better...  Ultimate speedsters.

3) More power with FIKI at altitude is best...  Great for IFR trips in the cold

4) My family doesn't care for O2 personal hardware.  We went N/A IO550, no FIKI.

5) Modern Continental engines have balanced smooth curved intakes.  Best for LOP through a range of power settings.

6) Ultimate Mooney would be a 310hp TN'd FIKI Acclaim replete with air conditioning...

How does that sound?

Best regards,

-a-

Wait, so your engine does not have a "log runner" style intake running down each bank?

[carusoam]

Sorry Ross,  I must have dropped some thoughts along the way...

5.5) my ultimate Mooney has the 310 NA hp with nice curvy balanced intakes that allow for smooth LOPs down to about 90°F at lower altitudes LOP.... Lean until it just shuts off.  No odd vibrations or rough running.

5.6) mine is an IO550(n) the latest version of the 310hp engine with a modified cooling fin design.

Eric's plane has nice photos that I knew where to find.  I have nice photos of my engine on an old hard disk, somewhere...(?)

Hope that helps clear things up.

Best regards,

-a-

 

[FoxMike]

I'll throw in a plug for the Bravo.  I have many hours in E models (owned two), J and K models.  I went with a Bravo because the cabin is more comfortable and because of the wet head.  If you fly at high power/high altitude the oil being pumped over the exhaust valve guide really cuts down the wear and increases reliability.  Bravos hardly never need a top on the way to TBO.  I just did a trip to Cuba about 3600NM and took friends who own a 252.  They liked the extra room in the Bravo.  I have TKS which I do not use much but when you need it their is no substitute.  Down side is an inefficient engine.  I use 75% power and get 10MN/gal.  Another downside is a very heavy nose which makes the airplane tricky to land.  I normally touchdown well above stall to have enough tail force to raise the nose.  I guess you need to ride a few hours in each model then decide.

[carusoam]

FM mentions something important...

The Long Body is like an L version of that fancy car.  The one your Mother-in-law likes to ride around in the back seat of.

If you intend to take important people for a ride and they have to sit in the back, Go Long Body!

If you intend to drag kids/family with you that eventually will be as tall as you are, Go Long Body!

My financial administrator prefers the back seat.  It is more comfortable for her.  That leaves me with one of my kids up front as SIC.

If the back seats go mostly unused.  The M20E makes a great lower cost retirement plane. Fuel injection and LOP make it an affordable flier.

Best regards,

-a-

[FlyDave]

Some thoughts from a Bravo owner (that moved up from a J in December, 2013):

Pro's:

• The long body of a Bravo adds a lot of baggage area. Combine that with the fold down rear seats and you probably have enough volume (not useful load) for 2 of Maruader's girls
• Long body is a bit more stable in turbulence
• I think the long body is easier to consistently produce better landings in
• Bravo's up until approximately 2000 models have room for 3 rows of instruments - you can fit a lot of instruments/avionics in that panel. Caveat is a shorter windshield.
• All Bravo's have built in o2 with 115 cubic foot bottles. 2 people can go from CA to NY and most of the way back on one fill at 18,000'
• Bravo is a production airplane - some people prefer that over a heavily STC'ed plane. I don't really care either way but it may make a difference at resale.
• Bravo's have a Lycoming engine (ok, flame suit on....)
• <<I think>> more Bravo's make it to TBO than Continental equipped planes. This may be due to the "wet head" design. DO NOT fly your bravo by the POH numbers or you will be replacing cylinders, exhaust and turbochargers on a very regular basis!
• Bravo's have 2 80-amp alternators and 2 batteries. The also have both a mechanical and backup electric vacuum pumps. A lot of redundancy is nice - especially if flying IFR
• You can put 106 gallon's of fuel in the Bravo, 100 of which is useable. It can have pretty long legs if you fly in an economy mode. My wife and I can depart with 106 gallons and pretty much all the baggage we want and still be with W&B limits. Note: if you fill extended fuel tanks in any Mooney model you will not get 2 medium sized people plus baggage in the plane and be within W&B limits. But also remember that the human bladder is much smaller than extended range tanks .
• My plane specific
  • My engine is fairly easy to keep the temps under control
  • My plane trues out at 210 KTAS @ FL210 on 18.5 GPH. This is excellent performance.
  • I have a useful load of ~1015 lbs.

 

Bravo Cons:

• Fuel burn: 16.5 - 18.5 GPH - better than a rocket, not as good as a 252
• Engine replacement costs - YIKES
  • Bravo: http://www.airpowerinc.com/productcart/pc/engines.asp?searchParm=tio540af1b&catID=33
  • Rocket: http://www.airpowerinc.com/productcart/pc/TCEngineDetail.asp?catID=69&prodID=25112
  • 252: http://www.airpowerinc.com/productcart/pc/TCEngineDetail.asp?catID=69&prodID=24863
• Bravo engine doesn't run LOP (except Awful_Charlie's plane)
• Bravo engine's typically don't run as smooth as the Continentals.

I think the Bravo is an excellent plane and I am really glad I went with it. I don't have any time in either of the other models you listed so I really can't offer an opinion on them.

Let me know if I can provide any additional information.

Well, I guess that's all I have to say so best of luck!

Dave

[jcollier]

Thank you so much everyone for all of the advice and comments.  

FlyDave: I see you are in Petaluma.  I am in Windsor, I would bet we have a common friend or two.  I have been looking everywhere for someone in this area that owns a mooney to be able to pick their brain!  I really really appreciate all of your great info!  What is the chance I could buy you lunch sometime and pick your brain.  

I am beyond grateful for everyone's replies.  I'm certain I will have many more questions as I dig deeper into my search.  

 

[FlyDave]

Hey - I could fly 13 nm to Santa Rosa and we could meet half way

I'll send you a PM with my contact info.

[Mcstealth]

5 hours ago, jcollier said:

I'm sure this is a horse that has been beat to death, multiple times.

However, when considering traveling across the country (i.e. CA to TN to FL to CA) multiple times per year (2-5 times per year). In your opinion, what is the better cross-country traveler?  This is personal and not for business, therefore there are no time constraints.  In other words, I wouldn't be required to leave one day vs the next, so I could wait for weather to clear. 

It is strictly myself and my bride, so baggage "shouldn't", I repeat "shouldn't" be an issue.  LOL  

I'm not looking for folks to explain to me "how I should fly commercial" or "why would you do that" answers, I'm more looking for legitimate insight into the 305 vs 252 vs Bravo.  Comfort, speed, weather, fuel burns, etc...  If your options were 252 vs 305 vs Bravo, what would you choose, and why?

Thanks for your time, in advance!

 

Joshua

What is the budget?

 

[Awful_Charlie]

As Dave pointed out above, I'm another Bravo driver, but I don't have any experience of a 305, and only an hour in a K as right seat pax, so I can't really offer a subjective comparison. Being based just east of the Greenwich meridian in the land of expensive avgas, I do have GAMIs and tend to run  just LOP at around 13-14GPH for 175-185 KTAS at FL180-190, and save the 17+GPH settings for when there is a nasty headwind. My engine is now at 1900 hours, and on four original cylinders, one changed early in its life under warranty by the first owner, and one by me at about 1600 hours due to poor compression - at the last annual in November they were 79/76/76/76/72/78, the worst one out of that lot being the recent replacement!

I traded up from an Arrow 180, principally because I re-located and needed FIKI, and the wisdom I received was that a turbo was probably more use than FIKI on its own, but having both is of course better. The extra legroom in the back is great when more than two on board, but my max load is just shy of 1000lbs which 100USG puts a big hole into, making it a two seater + small bags and TKS with full fuel. My regular trips are in the 400nm area, so I frequently carry the gas to do the return without filling as I get a better price at home.

The dual batteries, dual alternators, dual vac. pumps, great exterior lighting add a comfort factor when  the weather is nasty and at night (within the limits of being in a SEP). The Bravo is the lowest powered of the long bodies (excluding the L, as they are very rare now), so is a bit of a runway hog on take off - anything less than 800 meters hard/1000 meters grass to me means checking the figures, but when off the ground keeps climbing strongly to FL210 or so where it starts to tail off.

115cuFt oxygen is a bit of a pest for maintenance, but with oxysaver canulas gives something like 100 man hours at FL180 or so, and by renting a bottle it is cheap to fill and excess usage doesn't worry me. There's lots of hoses under the cowl to keep an eye on (as just about any turbo will have), the 25 hour oil change is a bit of an inconvenience, but I tend to do most of these myself which keeps the cost down and avoids scheduling problems with my A&P.

Happy to answer any Bravo questions if you have something specific in mind.- happy hunting!

Ben

[jcollier]

McStealth: 200k or less.  Preferably staying under 175k.

Charlie: Thank you for all the info.  I really appreciate you taking the time to explain all of that.  I would really like to have FIKI even though I have zero interest in flying that way.  I would just like to have it for the "just in case" scenarios.  Thank you so much for your insight, I'm sure that I will have many more questions down the road.  Thanks again.

[Mcstealth]

8 hours ago, jcollier said:

8 hours ago, jcollier said:

 

McStealth: 200k or less.  Preferably staying under 175k.

Charlie: Thank you for all the info.  I really appreciate you taking the time to explain all of that.  I would really like to have FIKI even though I have zero interest in flying that way.  I would just like to have it for the "just in case" scenarios.  Thank you so much for your insight, I'm sure that I will have many more questions down the road.  Thanks again.

 

http://mooneypilots.com/classifieds/jan_2016_classifieds.htm

 

There are a couple of birds to look at on the MAPA classified that fit your needs.

If I was spending your money, It would be hard for me to pass the efficiency and ability of the Encore (252) It fits your budget with wiggle room, has enough performance to satisfy your needs, and you can find these birds with low TT with lots of goodies in the panel (as you can also with the 305 and Bravo obviously)

Will a 252 cost less to maintain? "Possibly"

Can it get most of the goodies a Bravo can? "Mostly"

Can it be just as good a "cross county traveler" per your requirements as a Rocket or Bravo for two passengers and baggage without a time table? Absoulutely.

My Humble opinion.

David

 

 

[stevesm20b]

I would go with the 252 rocket. The ceiling is 28,000ft. The 231 rocket is 24,000ft. Both will climb 2000fpm and at 24,000 still climbs at 1000fpm.