252 vs 305 vs Bravo

[jcollier]

23 hours ago, Tony Armour said:

When I decided to move from my 83j to a Rocket eight years ago, it was because I wanted to go as fast as I could....I wanted a rocket :-) hot rodder by nature.

Then I started looking at them and although NOTHING is wrong with the panel etc.....if I was "upgrading" read spending more $$$ I didn't want to be looking at the same old panel just like my 201 and my 201 had seven year old paint and interior that I had done.....it looked NICE. Everything I looked at didn't look near as nice and had the same old panel, many looked down right ratty compared to my J. That combined with a couple well known Mooney folks steering me towards a factory turbocharged airplane convinced me that I could give up a little speed for a newer airframe/panel/goodies, factory designed etc. Now eight years later I'm still happy with my decision. 

A Bravo WILL burn more fuel than a K. I figure 20gph and come close to burning that too (but paid $3.18 gallon today) Neither of the other two are long bodies. Bravo seats don't down fold down....they come OUT and they both come out in one minute, back in in two minutes ! I'm talking plenty of room to stretch out for the night, I have.

Frequently I pack that huge area full. From a couple full size road bikes to the dog crate or enough supplies to self sustain for a week in the Bahamas. I would not give up the room of my long body, ever. Normally I have one or neither rear seat in my airplane.

All that said, once a guy on my field asked what the best airplane was for his mission. Him and his wife, multiple trips to Utah from Georgia and the normal Florida, Bahamas etc. My reply was a 231 ( of course 252 is the best in that group) mainly because of fuel burn and still having the altitude capability. 

I don't miss not having TKS living in Ga. And rarely flying up north. I don't want and so far will not/have no need to fly in those conditions. (Daughter has moved to Baltimore so that's getting close) Although TKS is "supposed" to book $40-50k more, watching Bravos on the market that does not seem to be true. You might find a deal with TKS now days.

GA to Utah one fuel stop, light headwind. Ga to Vegas two stops light headwind but it was close to one stop. Return trips, light tailwind always one stop.

I suggest you look at, sit in and investigate all of them. You can spend all the money in the world to make the outside pretty, the panel perfect but you can't stretch a K/Rocket :-)

Like said above, most owners think they have the best/perfect airplane....and you know what ? All of them (me) are right. With any of them you can't go wrong !

Tony,

Thank you very much for the time you took to write this up.  I haven't rode in a rocket yet, however, I really like the extra room in the Bravo.  However, I'm fairly certain I would really like the extra speed as well.  In the grand scheme of things, over the long trip, I'm not sure that 10-20-40 or 50 min slower would make a huge difference in my mission.  That's the beauty of not being in a huge rush.  

Thank you again for your input.  It is very helpful for me.

 

[thinwing]

This summer after trip to AK and Canada we again were grateful for the space ,altitude and fiki tks.We don't go out looking for ice but always seem to find it.Even though icing spells are short lived and most wouldn't effect the flight ,it is a huge comfort making light to moderate leading edge paint go away.My vote is the Bravo..a mature design once the oil cooled valves mod came about with cylinder heads much more likely to make tbo..k

[Steve Dietrich]

As a former owner of a 231 converted midlife to a 262 (equivalent of a 12 volt 252) some thoughts. 

Ironically the new digital instruments and LED lighting have reduced the electrical loads to the point where 12 volts is not the disadvantage it used to be.

I think the soft market for Rockets reflects some of the operating issues including fuel consumption, weight etc including maintenance costs

Mod Works and I believe another Mooney shop did conversions of the 231s,  to the equivalent of 252's and should not be overlooked.  most of the conversion was simply replacing everything forward of the firewall with a TCM 360MB motor  and Mooney engine mounts, cowling, induction plumbing etc. The Mod Works conversions come with a manual cowl flap that is  adjusted using something similar to a prop control..... the result is substantially better than the Mooney electrical control for several reasons.    a) maintenance cost  ,b tactile feedback as to position, c   fine settings  and most importantly reliability -

The mooney electrical system uses spade connectors on three critical connections     2 on the master switch and 1 where the wire from the master switch attaches to the skin.  The failure ( slip or just oxidation) of any one can cause instant electrical failure of everything in the airplane other than the overhead lights. Worst case is IFR approach with gear , half flaps and cowl flaps closed .  If you have the electrical cowl flaps they stay closed.

 

Some years ago I raced a Rocket from Bishop to Santa Monica..   Rocket arrived about 5 minutes earlier but lost 2.5 minutes in additional refueling time.

 

 

 

 

[jlunseth]

I have just a couple of thoughts, and I fly a 231, not any of the three you are interested in.  But I have flown my 231 just about everywhere the OP says he wants to go, the only state in his list I have not made yet is CA.

For me, the contest would be based on three considerations: fuel flow (will it run LOP), FIKI, and useful load.  It took me awhile, but I am able to fly my 231 LOP and it is great to get excellent fuel economy plus cooler cylinders and excellent airspeed as well.  The 252 can be made to run LOP.  The Bravo not so much, some people have reported being able to get it there and others have spent a lot of time and money and given up - from what I have read anyway.  The 252 and the Bravo can come with FIKI TKS or you can add it (for  $50 - 60,000).  Not the Rocket.  You can no doubt get inadvertent icing TKS in a Rocket but not FIKI, because it would require certification of the entire airframe for FIKI and that has not been done.  On the useful load issue, of the three, it would depend on what equipment the aircraft carries and they are all a horse apiece, I would just be careful to get something that will actually carry you and your bride and some luggage.  The useful load just got smaller and smaller over time, and some of the later model Acclaims would carry full fuel and one skinny pilot. 

I live in the Midwest (Minnesota) and icing is a problem here for about 5 months of the year.  For that matter it is a problem at higher altitudes just about everywhere.  I have encountered it over IL in July, over IA in June, and over FL in May.  I would want FIKI TKS in my next plane, and to me that says 252 or Bravo.  Then I would think about the fuel flow, that would be around 17 in the Bravos, at least as I understand it from the Bravo guys (I don't fly one).  In a 252 you would not get Bravo speed, but you would get really good speed, around 170-175 knots in the low flight levels, with a fuel flow of 11.5 GPH LOP.  So it would come down to the old story, burn more gas and go faster or burn less and go not quite as fast by 10-20 knots.

Forget that 28k certified ceiling for the 252.  You won't want to go up there.  For one thing, the climb rate gets anemic past critical altitude, and it would take forever to get there.  For another, everything in the engine runs hotter because of the thin air.  And last but hardly least your time of useful consciousness becomes so short compared to any speed advantage you might get flying up there, that it is just not worth it.  I limit myself, because of time of useful consciousness, to FL 20 or 21, unless there is a real reason to go higher.  My critical altitude with the Merlyn wastegate is about 22.  The 252 has the same basic engine, with a better turbo setup and wastegate controller, but you are not going to get much more critical altitude than what I get.  I have read that it is 24k.  I am a little dubious.  But regardless, once you hit that your climb rate falls dramatically.  You will be looking at 100-300 FPM the last 1-2,000 feet.

My personal choice would be the Bravo and I would just live with the fuel flow.  The 252 is a heck of a plane though, and if you get the right one it comes with a great useful load.  The Rocket will really boogey, but no FIKI.

[KevinR]

Worked through the same set of questions two years ago. Bought a 252 Rocket and couldn't be happier. Completed a firewall forward extensive overhaul so I can speak at length on the maintenance costs and support from Rocket Engineering. Contact me if you'd like to talk. 

 My favorite aspect of the Rocket is its versatility. Flew round trip from Florida to California last month. Take your pick: Pull the power back and fly LOP 178kts burning 13 GPH. Hammer down, 24 GPH & see an honest 225 up high (FL 240). Climb out at 140kts / 1500 FPM and you'll find clear air 99% of the time. I'd take a big turbo over TKS any day. 

IMO, best value in the market for 2 people who want to go fast & far. 

[Yooper Rocketman]

FIKI TKS IS available on a 252 converted Rocket.  FWIW, I fly a 231 Rocket with TKS and a FIKI TKS Turbo Bonaza.  The only failure I have ever seen of the TKS system in 15 years flying with this feature was in the Bonanza, of which I have about 1/5th the hours in vs. my Rocket.  Dual pumps and dual alternators are the only differences ( when compared to identical air frames ).  Don't get a false sense of security the "certified system" is the answer.  Between my experiences, and those of an operator with a ton of TKS Caravans, your are far more likely to see a failure mode of components other than the pump and alternator, so the certification has more to do with making you "legal" than actually reducing your risk any significant amount.

 

[StevenL757]

On February 3, 2016 at 11:40 PM, FlyDave said:

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

 

So Joshua...although those are some pretty big pros, those are pretty big cons as well.  With as many trips a year as you plan on doing, why not consider a 310BHP Ovation...with or without TKS?

[gsengle]

Ovations seem to cost a premium... For good reason imho

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Seth]

On 2/3/2016 at 9:46 PM, Hank said:

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.

It's the IO-550A

[Steve Dietrich]

On 3/14/2016 at 1:35 PM, jlunseth said:

I'll respectfully disagree.  The 252's critical altitude is 24,000 .  Mine saw 30,000 on a couple of occasions and was often flown at 25,000 .

Yup  it's a VERY hostile environment up there and prudence demands a second , fully independent oxygen system within view and easy arms reach .  Over the term of my ownership I had the LB, GB and MB motors.  Also flew other 231s with merylins and intercoolers.  The MB motor is simplyh

 

 

On 3/14/2016 at 1:35 PM, jlunseth said:

Forget that 28k certified ceiling for the 252.  You won't want to go up there.  For one thing, the climb rate gets anemic past critical altitude, and it would take forever to get there.  For another, everything in the engine runs hotter because of the thin air.  And last but hardly least your time of useful consciousness becomes so short compared to any speed advantage you might get flying up there, that it is just not worth it.  I limit myself, because of time of useful consciousness, to FL 20 or 21, unless there is a real reason to go higher.  My critical altitude with the Merlyn wastegate is about 22.  The 252 has the same basic engine, with a better turbo setup and wastegate controller, but you are not going to get much more critical altitude than what I get.  I have read that it is 24k.  I am a little dubious.  But regardless, once you hit that your climb rate falls dramatically.  You will be looking at 100-300 FPM the last 1-2,000 feet.

 

 

Edited March 19, 2016 by Steve Dietrich

[Pissed'Ole-Pete]

ooops

Edited October 31, 2017 by Pissed'Ole-Pete