Buying another Mooney, need advice

[Bob_Belville]

Just now, mike_elliott said:

I got your 264 and raise you 99

Math your second language, Mike? 353-264=? borrow the 1...

[mike_elliott]

Just now, Bob_Belville said:

Math your second language, Mike? 353-264=? borrow the 1...

corrected...darn I want to say 100....

 

[donkaye]

3 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

I got your 264 and raise you 99

 

This was a Mooney?  Were you headed straight down?

[mike_elliott]

Yep N82CG 2016  Acclaim, David Lincoln, 25K eastbound to KRYY

[peevee]

1 minute ago, mike_elliott said:

Yep N82CG 2016  Acclaim, David Lincoln, 25K eastbound to KRYY

Cool.

 

Show us the westbound leg that day.

[mike_elliott]

He traded that beautiful J to Premier when he purchased the Acclaim, Jim. I was fortunate enough to do his transition training for him, if you can call training a 19K hour pro training. I learned a lot from him

Look for him at the Mooney Summit this year! BTW, I dont see that you have registered yet!

 

[KLRDMD]

3 hours ago, jetpilot12 said:

What is the fuel burn compared to the 231 and 252?

Having owned both a Bravo and a 231, I can give you specifics of my airplanes for the way I fly/flew them. At 17,500 ft, in cruise:

My Bravo burned 19.4 GPH to give 193 KTAS. My Bravo (as well as most, according to what I read) would not run LOP at any reasonable power setting and it had TKS KI.

My 231 burns 9.0 GPH to give 175 KTAS. That's LOP at 59% power.

The way I see it, the Bravo takes 215% more fuel than the 231 to go 110% faster.

My comparison between the 231 and the 252 is that currently available 231s are 90% of a 252 at 60% of the price.

Yes, the Bravo is the fastest of the three and yes a 252 is better than a 231. The 231, in my opinion offers better value than the 252 or Bravo, though. YMMV.

[aviatoreb]

4 hours ago, peevee said:

Probably not going to see 230 ish in a rocket at 170, higher sure. I'd expect about 215ish. The difference is slight speed wise. The difference in weight and balance is larger.

A balloon will go 230 knots if you give it a...230 knot tail wind.  On 0 TAS.

I don't think 230 is the true airspeed of the bravo at 17,000.   I once saw 327GS with a really ferocious tail wind, at, 17,000ft.  That's the biggest number I ever saw on my gps.

[aviatoreb]

3 hours ago, KLRDMD said:

My Bravo burned 19.4 GPH to give 193 KTAS. My Bravo (as well as most, according to what I read) would not run LOP at any reasonable power setting and it had TKS KI.

My 231 burns 9.0 GPH to give 175 KTAS. That's LOP at 59% power.

The way I see it, the Bravo takes 215% more fuel than the 231 to go 110% faster.

That's stated as 10% faster, otherwise the bravo would be going about 365 if it were 110% faster.

[aviatoreb]

4 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

I got your 264 and raise you 89

 

WOW!

[Hank]

And to think I was excited to see 186 knots in my little C . . . Hold on to your hat, it's gonna be an exciting ride moving to a K!

[gsxrpilot]

I think @donkaye once said that the cost to fly and operate his Bravo was $30K per year for 150 hour per year?  I could be off on those numbers. Please correct me if I'm off here @donkaye.  But I do remember the numbers quoted, told me that I couldn't quite afford to fly a Bravo. And therefore went with a 252.

[mike_elliott]

I think [mention=7354]donkaye[/mention] once said that the cost to fly and operate his Bravo was $30K per year for 150 hour per year?  I could be off on those numbers. Please correct me if I'm off here [mention=7354]donkaye[/mention].  But I do remember the numbers quoted, told me that I couldn't quite afford to fly a Bravo. And therefore went with a 252.

Figure 100 / hr for fuel, 25/hr engine reserve, then add on your fixed costs and planned upgrade costs

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[KLRDMD]

1 hour ago, aviatoreb said:

That's stated as 10% faster, otherwise the bravo would be going about 365 if it were 110% faster.

How about the Bravo is 110% the speed of the 231 ??

[peevee]

Speed isn't the only thing. Climb and ability to keep the engine cool matters too 

[KLRDMD]

40 minutes ago, peevee said:

Speed isn't the only thing. Climb and ability to keep the engine cool matters too 

I get 800 FPM and CHTs are never over 360º in climb. OAT was over 100ºF when I departed Tucson earlier today, nothing over 360º in the climb. I could probably push that to 380-390º and 1,000 FPM but I don't. Yes, a Bravo (and Rocket) climbs faster and cruises faster than a 231/252 - but it isn't worth the fuel penalty to me.

[aviatoreb]

46 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

How about the Bravo is 110% the speed of the 231 ??

Full credit!

kudos!

or should I say bravo!

[peevee]

36 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

I get 800 FPM and CHTs are never over 360º in climb. OAT was over 100ºF when I departed Tucson earlier today, nothing over 360º in the climb. I could probably push that to 380-390º and 1,000 FPM but I don't. Yes, a Bravo (and Rocket) climbs faster and cruises faster than a 231/252 - but it isn't worth the fuel penalty to me.

I run the rocket at almost the same fuel flows I ran the 231 it replaced. And I probably at least break even in climb due to reduced time in climb. I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

[KLRDMD]

31 minutes ago, peevee said:

I run the rocket at almost the same fuel flows I ran the 231 it replaced. And I probably at least break even in climb due to reduced time in climb. I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

My A&P/IA flies a Rocket and he burns 20 GPH in cruise for 190 KTAS at 10,000 ft. And he only has about 750 lb useful load so he can't even legally fill the tanks even solo.  To me, it isn't worth more than double the fuel flow for only 25-30 kts plus the extra purchase price plus the extra yearly expense to have a Rocket (greater hull value is greater insurance, minimally) - but to some it is. The same fuel flow on the same airframe means the same airspeed. Actually in a heavier airframe, slower. Why buy a Rocket to fly at less than 231 speeds on 231 fuel flow ? I never flew my Bravo at reduced power although it certainly could be run that way - but why ? I bought my Bravo because I wanted known ice. There were no Rockets or 252s on the market at that time with KI and 231s (and most Rockets) cannot be KI.

[peevee]

27 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

My A&P/IA flies a Rocket and he burns 20 GPH in cruise for 190 KTAS at 10,000 ft. And he only has about 750 lb useful load so he can't even legally fill the tanks even solo.  To me, it isn't worth more than double the fuel flow for only 25-30 kts plus the extra purchase price plus the extra yearly expense to have a Rocket (greater hull value is greater insurance, minimally) - but to some it is. The same fuel flow on the same airframe means the same airspeed. Actually in a heavier airframe, slower. Why buy a Rocket to fly at less than 231 speeds on 231 fuel flow ? I never flew my Bravo at reduced power although it certainly could be run that way - but why ? I bought my Bravo because I wanted known ice. There were no Rockets or 252s on the market at that time with KI and 231s (and most Rockets) cannot be KI.

We have 1080 useful. I can put 103 gallons, bags, and me and the wife on board. If your guy has 750 then something is wrong.

I can run 27" and see basically 231 performance on 15gph or I can run 31" and run faster. I can climb out at gross 1750fpm. Kind of handy departing a short strip at 10k density altitude.

The 520 doesn't cost me much to mimic a 231 and the rocket cooling is much better, climb is better, and I can run 230-235 knots if I want to.

The big bore mooneys are much more flexible.

 

It cracks me up to see people spending 20k or more a year to keep a plane then bitch about a few gallons of gas.

[KLRDMD]

50 minutes ago, peevee said:

I can run 27" and see basically 231 performance on 15gph. It cracks me up to see people spending 20k or more a year to keep a plane then bitch about a few gallons of gas.

If you see 231 performance in your Rocket on 15 GPH, that ain't 231 fuel burn. Even ROP at 75% power, I doubt you can get the fuel flow over 13 GPH in a 231. I burn 9.0 GPH in cruise. Taking that 6 GPH difference between your 231 fuel flow and mine, that's a significant amount money over one's flying career. I fly about 150 hours per year and plan to have a 40 year flying career. I'm well over half way there. 6 GPH x 150 hours per year is 900 gallons per year in fuel difference. Self serve fuel is $4.85 where I departed from today (KAVQ) ands $5.44 where I landed (KVNY). That's an average of $5.14 per gallon. That's $4,626 per year just in fuel difference between your Rocket and my 231, both said to be at 231 speeds. Over a 40 year flying career that's $185,000. Taking the 20 GPH the way it seems many Rockets are flown, even with the increased speed over a 231, that's well over a $300,000 difference just in fuel over a flying career. Hardly peanuts.

As long as you're happy with your airplane and I'm happy with mine, what's the problem ?

[Godfather]

54 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

If you see 231 performance in your Rocket on 15 GPH, that ain't 231 fuel burn. Even ROP at 75% power, I doubt you can get the fuel flow over 13 GPH in a 231. I burn 9.0 GPH in cruise. Taking that 6 GPH difference between your 231 fuel flow and mine, that's a significant amount money over one's flying career. I fly about 150 hours per year and plan to have a 40 year flying career. I'm well over half way there. 6 GPH x 150 hours per year is 900 gallons per year in fuel difference. Self serve fuel is $4.85 where I departed from today (KAVQ) ands $5.44 where I landed (KVNY). That's an average of $5.14 per gallon. That's $4,626 per year just in fuel difference between your Rocket and my 231, both said to be at 231 speeds. Over a 40 year flying career that's $185,000. Taking the 20 GPH the way it seems many Rockets are flown, even with the increased speed over a 231, that's well over a $300,000 difference just in fuel over a flying career. Hardly peanuts.

As long as you're happy with your airplane and I'm happy with mine, what's the problem ?

This is a joke right?  You'll probably own ten different planes in the next 20 years...probably one more bravo before you're done. 

[jetpilot12]

You guys have given a headache!!!! Brain overload!!!! Too much information!!!! LOL!!! 

From what I see, it doesn't matter what I buy, all Mooney's are good!

I think I'm on the hunt for a 231 or 252. Inter cooler is a must.

Bravo, is a good plane but, might cost more per hour than I want to spend.

I can't afford anything newer, not sure what I can find a in my price range. I'm looking in the $95K to $120K range.

I want something with less than 800 hours SMOH (engine and prop), autopilot w/altitude hold and Garmin radios, WAAS GPS,

engine monitor and a fuel computer. Decent paint but, interior can be in need of upgrade. 

I have had a few people asking me when I plan on selling my M20C. The answer is, end of summer, unless I find that perfect Mooney!

Doesn't look like I will have any problem selling my Mooney with all of the extras she has.

 

Thank you again to everyone, your input was invaluable!!!

Jon Martin 

 

 

[chrisk]

On 7/3/2017 at 7:03 PM, gsxrpilot said:

 I also talked to a lot of 231 owners, and not to disparage that model, but nearly all of them in private said they'd rather have had a 252.

I own a 231 and love it.  If I could get a 252 for the same price, I would prefer it.  But if I owned a 252, I would be saying the same thing about a Rocket.  And if I had a Rocket, I would be saying the same thing about a Bravo.  And if I had a Bravo, I would be lusting after an Acclaim.

That said, Paul points out a significant problem with under buying, which is the cost vs benefit of trading up.   As an example, I have a 231, with the kinks worked out and equipped the way I like.  It would be quite expensive for me to sell my plane and buy a 252, where I likely have to work out the kinks again and upgrade the avionics.  And with a 252, the performance difference isn't that significant.  So, if I trade up, its likely going to be a Bravo, where I see a significant performance difference.  --Now I just need to find the deal of a lifetime on a Bravo!

 

[gsxrpilot]

46 minutes ago, chrisk said:

I own a 231 and love it.  If I could get a 252 for the same price, I would prefer it.  But if I owned a 252, I would be saying the same thing about a Rocket.  And if I had a Rocket, I would be saying the same thing about a Bravo.  And if I had a Bravo, I would be lusting after an Acclaim.

I'd actually like to have an MU2... with a pair of Garrett's that I certainly can't afford to feed or maintain.

As I evaluate the budget for airplane ownership, there are two distinct categories, CapEx and OpEx. I briefly looked at Bravos as the CapEx (purchase price) was in my budget. But I decided the OpEx of a Bravo which includes fuel, oil, annuals, and engine fund, etc, exceeded my budget and was significantly higher than a M20K. And of course, the OpEx of an Acclaim or the MU2 is even higher.

When comparing the 231, 252/Encore, the OpEx is virtually the same and only the CapEx is different. So it was an easy decision to make to spend the extra CapEx to get the best possible plane without moving up into the next OpEx category. And with the better resale value of the 252's, the CapEx is actually reduced and the ability to upgrade the 252 to an Encore will improve the CapEx number even further. 

Just my $0.02 on how I arrived at the decision on the 252.