Questions about the 231/252 K models

[Doggtyred]

On 8/17/2016 at 2:34 PM, jackn said:

To state the obvious, getting there and home safely without getting stuck is the most important thing. Of all the airplanes I looked into, the Encore was the best for the money. Dual vacuum, dual alternators, long rang tanks and TKS anti-ice as a bonus. Three of these have Allowed me to complete my journey at one time or another. Remember Murphy and his law? I had an alternator fail at 6pm on the Friday before a 4th of July long weekend when I was heading home. 5-10 kts isn't going to make any difference. I run at those speeds. FWIW below is my engine monitor. You can see the fuel burn ROP at 75% and LOP at the same settings, but now at 65%. TAS in not important as that will change depending on altitude and the conditions of the day. 

 

I'd gladly settle for 169 kts ground speed at 10.5 GPH... as opposed to 172 kts ground speed at 13+ gph

[kortopates]

39 minutes ago, Doggtyred said:

Actually it was answering a question that wasn't asked...  and gave information that I had already found elsewhere and was aware of. I was explicit in what I was looking for, and one or two folks obliged with explicit answers to my direct, specific question. And as typical in many internet forums, aviation or not, there was a lot of bandwith spent answering questions that weren't asked, and then debating those answers to questions that weren't asked. But hey... thats what makes forums interesting some days, and aggravating others. At least the discussion here is civil when that happens... so far... as opposed to other forums. And I appreciate the intent with which the unsolicited information was provided, which was for me to make an informed decision when its time for me to make that decision. No offense intended to anyone who responded. 

But at this point in time, I'm just trying to get a feel for my budget considerations and actual operating costs that other users are experiencing in typical use. Which is why I'm asking about the K model and not the Bravo, Ovation etc... and I'm open to the J model as an alternative, but really liking the K so far.

 

I think you're wise enough to realize threads on this and most forums take on their own directions based on the most recent post(s). In reality, your just one element in the conversation among many. Keeping involved as you have been doing is probably the only way to get the information you seek. I think its a pretty civil and friendly too but I think any forum that allows people to be anonymous is not going to be as civil and respectful as one that requires identities. I am primarily basing that opinion though on the Bonanza group that I think is best behaved forum I am aware of. But I don't peruse that many - these are too time consuming!  

The operating cost question is way too general of a question for me to touch. Virtually no two pilot owners maintain and operate their aircraft in a similar manner. At the very expensive end is the operator that way use his plane to commute for business that needs to maximize his/her dispatch rate and minimize downtime for maintenance. Such a owner will also more likely acquire replacement parts as new or exchange and overnight them if need be. They are also more likely to tend to address squawks right away rather than allow them to accumulate. And they are less likely to have the time to participate in doing any of their own maintenance. The other extreme is the owner that maintains their birds entirely on condition, always trying to repair their parts before buying any part on exchange, and generally very involved in their planes maintenance often doing the full extent of allowed owner preventive maintenance. The the budgets between the two aren't even close to one another. To certain extent that even carries over into hangar, insurance and other fixed cost that would think are pretty standard but their not. But their are specifics you can focus on, like the typical inspection cost for a specific model in your area - but not annual cost cause then we're back to big variations.      

 

[Doggtyred]

8 minutes ago, kortopates said:

The operating cost question is way too general of a question for me to touch. Virtually no two pilot owners maintain and operate their aircraft in a similar manner. (snip)But their are specifics you can focus on, like the typical inspection cost for a specific model in your area - but not annual cost cause then we're back to big variations.      

 

Agreed... which is why I asked for data points so that I can look at multiple things, look at the context and draw my own conclusions. If I need to ask further questions to clarify differences, I'm willing to do that.

I identified my mission, and what I was looking for. Part of my detailed introduction, while somewhat vague, was to give the impression this wasn't my first rodeo. I was looking for other operators costs with this airframe, and operating techniques with this airframe, and I will look at all of them together and make an informed decision as to their relevance to what my situation might be. Clearly a plane that flies more might have lower overhead costs averaged out over those increased flight hours. Annuals with a new (to me) plane can be like playing the lottery.. or the Hunger Games... I get that. But once settled in, and maintained properly, and operated prudently, those costs should fall in line and be fairly predictable. (until something like the recent CMI 520/550 AD on ECI cylinders that came out this week happens, where a cylinder swap is mandated rather than being done "on condition").

And it IS one of the problems being an anonymous noob to an established group that most wont know anything about me, or my frame of reference... but threadjacks and pissing contests about what OTHER airframes are better than what I'm asking about (particularly when outside my price point) is frustrating, yet to be expected. 

And I am thankful to those who have chipped in with informative answers and details. The rest? It comes with the territory. 

[jackn]

As Paul said, it's a difficult question to answer. If parts are needed, then those parts from Mooney or Continental are going to be expensive, parts from Spuce, not so bad. Getting the problem identified and fixed the first time saves a lot. Don Maxwell's shop in Texas is one of the best also Kerry MacIntyre out in Wyoming. I'm nowhere near there, but I've called them with questions, and they have always been very kind and helpful. As an example, my starter adapter was failing. The 'new style' which I have only last about 1000 hours. I called Continental and Niagra( very reputable business), both told me they would have to see mine to give an accurate quote, but told me it would be in the $6,000 range. Don referred me to a shop in Texas that overhauled mine for about 1k. Still working fine. 

I do my own annuals, as I am fortunate to have one of the world best a&p w/ ia as a friend. Last years annual with new tubes/ tires and brake pads was abut $2,000 and about 10 days. 

My advice is to get a set of maintenance manuals, if you find champion plugs, get rid of them and replace with tempest, and take the time to diagnose the problem and know your options before bringing it somewhere. BTW, the airframe is solid.

I know that doesn't completely answer your questions, but that's all I got. 

[jrwilson]

I've had my 84 k with an intercooler for a year after owning a 20C for 12 years.

 

my last annual was 4,000 with relatively few squawks, comparable to my C costs.  Fuel burn at 75% is 12.7 rop, maybe slightly less. i fly fly high when possible and use o2, but it's fairly cheap to fill the tank, about $40.

I like the one piece belly, I think the 84 was the first year for that, not positive.  Gami injectors are good for lop.  I'd get one with at least an intercooler.

so far, my K has been AWESOME!  An extremely undervalued plane!  They usually come standard with tons of options you're  gonna pay extra on js, and despite what people who havnt flown a K will tell you, the performance difference is pretty significant between a J and K, even below 12,000.  

Fuel burn is a bit higher but on typical 2 hour flights, fuel burn is the same as my C, and on longer flights, 3+ hours, fuel burn with the k is less because I can skip a fuel stop (faster plus more fuel).

 

 

[jrwilson]

Another thing about k annuals, base inspection price at my shop is $2400 for the 20k which is the same as a nearby MSC.

[Smiles201]

If I recall correctly, there was a discussion, maybe a year or two ago, where some owners said their costs were something like 150 to 200 an hour including fuel, maintenance, repairs, insurance, hanger, engine and avionics reserve, etc. The more you fly, the less your hourly should be.

[GeorgePerry]

On August 19, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Doggtyred said:

Actually it was answering a question that wasn't asked...  and gave information that I had already found elsewhere and was aware of. I was explicit in what I was looking for, and one or two folks obliged with explicit answers to my direct, specific question. And as typical in many internet forums, aviation or not, there was a lot of bandwith spent answering questions that weren't asked, and then debating those answers to questions that weren't asked. But hey... thats what makes forums interesting some days, and aggravating others. At least the discussion here is civil when that happens... so far... as opposed to other forums. And I appreciate the intent with which the unsolicited information was provided, which was for me to make an informed decision when its time for me to make that decision. No offense intended to anyone who responded. 

But at this point in time, I'm just trying to get a feel for my budget considerations and actual operating costs that other users are experiencing in typical use. Which is why I'm asking about the K model and not the Bravo, Ovation etc... and I'm open to the J model as an alternative, but really liking the K so far.

 

With three posts under your belt it's probably a fair assumption for us to make that you may not have a thorough understanding of the mark. The discussion was intended to be helpful and offer an alternative - but if you didn't take it that way that can't be helped. Good luck. 

[Greg252AY]

I have had my 252 for two years and have flown it about 200 hours and so far it has been a great airplane as far as cost and performance.  I usually run it at 28" manifold and 2500 rpm at any altitude. the fuel burn is usually around 12.8gph and tas anywhere from 165 knots down low to 190k up at fl190. insurance is around 1400 and both of my annuals have been around 2500 including a few small repairs. I did have to replace the alternator and voltage regulator that was around 1500. Usually its just my wife and I so useful load has not been a issue. I have had 4 normal size adults in it for short flights ( i only have about 30 gallons when i do that) and once the back seat pax get in there is plenty of room. I am surprised how many times I have taken advantage of flying higher because of summer temps or wx or to catch a tail wind and often fly in the 15 to 17500' range. I owned a cessna 182 before and the mooney has been cheaper to operate per mile. Good luck on your search for a new airplane.

[kmyfm20s]

I like what you had to say George! No replacement for displacement!! I fly in, around and over the Rockies often. I take off in high density altitude situations and just don't have problems. NA planes with excess hp can maintain a reasonable climb rate and fly high. For the last 2000 feet I will give the slight nod to the K turbo flyers. This picture is 155 hp at 17,500 burning 10.4 gph fully loaded going Elk hunting last September non stop from San Diego to Durango Co.  Weather has never prevented me from flying because the weather that has kept me grounded I wouldn't fly through even if my Mooney had the proper equipment. As for redundancy I have everything with exception of an extra alternator and engine but I do have air conditioning:) My next plane will be one of those NA turboprops with excess hp and no 2nd engine Sorry to the OP for excess and redundant information!

[Baxsie]

Complete noob here.  Is the "GS 189" indicating 189 knots ground speed?

That would mean 217mph@10.4gph = 21mpg . . . better than many SUVs!

 

[carusoam]

Welcome aboard Baxsie,

GS is either ground speed or glide slope...

I'd go with ground speed in this case.

The G500 display is showing a few speeds depending on what the pilot wants to know...

ground speed, airspeed, and the mathematically temp adjusted True air speed (TAS).

Faster than an Indy 500 winner, no pit stops required for 1000 miles.  

In all honesty, note the additional wind info that is presented.  There is a wind barb showing a small 17 kt tail wind.

Can you see it all?

Go Mooney!  

Best regards,

-a-