Advice on turbo Mooney

[kortopates]

I am long time 252 owner and before that I was a 231 owner. Additionally I am Mooney specific CFI-II with time in all Mooney's except for a few of rare Vintage birds. I love my 252/Encore it has or had all the redundancies and equipment needed for long cross country flight, but has shed some of that with a glass panel installation.  I got it as an 252 and did the Encore conversion. I am also an A&P and work with SavvyAviation. Its the last in the line of fast and efficient birds. If cost, especially operational cost was not factor, I'd go for an Acclaim, which I flew for Mooney as an instructor pilot for a short term gig and feel is the very best in the fleet. But for my needs I prefer the more efficient fuel burn and cruise speeds (very near 200kts) up high which are the best tradeoffs for me. 

If one could not find or afford a 252, which does cost a premium over the 231, I would seriously recommend the 262 as a good compromise since it has the -MB engine. Sorry, but the Merlyn wastegate is not an "automatic or semi-automatic" wastegate - its a pneumatic wastegate that does offer many advantages of being able to manually regulate a wastegate, foremost of which is to get the critical altitude into the flight levels rather than upper teens. But automatic is not one of them, it is still just as manual as it was with the original fixed bolt wastegate. Its nothing like a real hydraulically operated automatic wastegate that you hear referred to as the "set and forget". But don't get me wrong, I am not here to bad mouth the 231, but you get what you pay for and obviously I was in the same crowd that didn't think the premium cost of the 252 was worth it when I bought my first turbo, a 231. But little did I realize what I didn't know at the time and when the opportunity presented itself while my wife was taking flying lessons I got the 252 to make it easier for her to fly - using her as the excuse  But there are many more great improvements in the -MB engine with its tuned induction system which is less susceptible to icing, its turbo controller and the  option for dual alternators (which is the most highly coveted option) as well as the 252's infinitely adjustable cowl flaps. Also all 252 included as standard a hot prop, speed brakes, standby electric vacuum, built-in O2 system and more. Can't recall if my fully articulating front seats (rare in 231) were standard in the 252 but they really aid in front seat comfort and the fold down rear seats (that debuted in '85) are also very helpful for hauling toys like bike's in the rear.  

To me the main draw back versus the newer Bravo and Acclaim turbo's is that they will give you much improved performance down low; especially under 12K; but at the cost of significantly more fuel burn. Longbody's have  other benefits too such as even being even more stable as an IFR platform. But once you climb up to the upper teens your getting great performance at very economical fuel burns and with the Encore mod a very good easily over 1100 useful load (without TKS). 

Performance wise I get book performance which is already well described in great detail above such as by @gsxrpilot and @Jsavage3 and others.

Edited January 23, 2018 by kortopates

[gsxrpilot]

Someone needs to sticky @Jsavage3 and @kortopates posts making the case for the 252/Encore. Those posts really say it all. 

Add this MAPA article - Flying the M20K 252 and I knew that my forever Mooney would be a 252/Encore.

There was only one Encore for sale when I was shopping but I knew the 252 could be converted. That made the choice over the 231 easy.

[FoxMike]

I have been a bravo owner since 2003 and put about 1700 hours on it.  Previously owned 2 E's, a Baron and T210.  I was shopping for a Rocket when I got a ride in a Bravo.  The interior size and interior finish sold me on the Bravo.  Since I like to travel the extra space was a great feature and especially more room on the flight deck.  I often do 8 or 9 hours days and little more room on the flight deck is appreciated.  I just got back from Florida  and appreciated the extra room, a good heater and FIKI.  Mooney did the instrument lighting right for those night legs.  These are the sort of things I appreciate on long trips.  It is also a lot quieter than the Midsize Mooney's.  I have time in all the Mooney products.  Maintenance cost is very much dependent on how well you handle the airplane.  Bravo's are very nose heavy and need more care in landing than any of the rest of the Mooney line.  Push the engine too hard and the exhaust will crack.  The wet head is a real asset if you fly high.  The Bravo with FIKI is a real weather airplane but requires good piloting skills.  Currently, they are cheap.  If you want a traveling airplane this model will work well.  I usually get about 10NM to the gallon.   

[carusoam]

Has @jlunseth stopped by...?  (This is also an invite for him to stop by)

He has written a fair amount regarding operations of his plane...

See if there is anything or another side of this story that He can add to...

Best regards,

-a-

 

 

[MIm20c]

I would think an overhaul from a good shop would be within a 10k spread from 252 to bravo. Both very expensive when you get all new / rebuilt accessories etc. 

I do agree about the extra 4-5 gph adding up. 

[peevee]

8 hours ago, MIm20c said:

 

I do agree about the extra 4-5 gph adding up. 

it's a rounding error compared to the rest of the ownership experience. especially when it comes to turbos.

[jlunseth]

On 1/22/2018 at 9:41 PM, carusoam said:

Has @jlunseth stopped by...?  (This is also an invite for him to stop by)

He has written a fair amount regarding operations of his plane...

See if there is anything or another side of this story that He can add to...

Best regards,

-a-

 

 

Everyone seemed to have this discussion well in hand, but I do have some thoughts.  I have had my 231 for nine years now and have done quite alot of long distance and flight-level traveling in it.  My thoughts, when I look at the models that are in the OP's desired range, go more towards safety and redundancy than fuel flow or cruise speed.  The cruise speeds of all these aircraft are very good.  But experience has taught me to be concerned about redundancy and weather fitness, especially in a turbo where the mission is very often going to be to get up on top and cruise in the clear.  You have to be able to get back down.  And doing long distance flights you will encounter some very challenging weather conditions.

The first advantage of the 252/Encore and the Bravo, over the 231, is not the wastegate in my view.  I have the Merlyn semi-auto wastegate and although it involves a little more work than a truly automatic wastegate, it is not that big a deal.  However, the 231 has a single battery, 12(14) volt system with a single alternator, and the alternator is vulnerable.  Actually, its not the alternator so much as the coupler, a clutch device in the drive of the alternator.  Lose the alternator (which I have had happen) in a single battery system, and you do not have much reserve to penetrate any IMC, shoot an approach, and make a safe landing.  In fact, you get to choose between flying with the Master on and using valuable battery resources, or turning it off to save your reserve and then having your whole panel go dark including the engine gauges.  Better hope you are VFR (I was the one time it happened to me in the air, thankfully).  

The 252/Encore are both dual battery, dual alternator, 24 volt systems.  You have redundancy, which in my view is very valuable, life-saving even.  Actually, I believe there are some early serial numbered 252's that are 12 volt, so check that, but most are 24.  Most also have redundant vacuum pumps, which is another point of potential failure with serious consequences.

The other priority for me in my next aircraft is FIKI deicing.  Yes, there are lots of ways you can skirt icing problems.  But there are lots of ways it can trap you also.  In my area of the country it improves dispatchability, because we have many winter months where there is a low and not very thick stratus layer, but we can't penetrate it because that would be flight into icing conditions.  And it is not so much the going up part that is the problem, it is the coming down, where you may be stuck right in the layer for an extended period flying an IAP to land.  I have had good luck getting controllers to let me hold up above the layer until on the glideslope and then basically diving through it, but I would much rather just throw the FIKI switch and be safe.  

Everything else is just, in my view, small tradeoffs.  Flying around with my grandson in the seat next to me, or flying over mountain country with one's family in the aircraft, safety is more important than how fast I get there.  

Not many 252/Encore FIKI's, and the Rocket/Missile can't be made FIKI.  If you can find a FIKI Encore great, but I would go for the FIKI Bravo.  Yes, you are going to burn fuel and its hard to run LOP according to the guys that have them, but you also have redundancy and weather capability.  

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by jlunseth

[KLRDMD]

On 1/22/2018 at 1:14 AM, JohnB said:

The first rule in owning a Bravo is we don't talk about Fuel Costs.

That's what caused me to buy my first twin. I figured if I'm going to burn close to 20 GPH in cruise, I want a second engine !

[KLRDMD]

On 1/22/2018 at 4:50 AM, bcwiseguy said:

I am definitely open to that idea. Mostly it will be my wife and I using it for travel but we will also be taking our grandkids back and forth from where they live so that is why the useful load is a concern for me.

The useful load (lack thereof) of my 231 is why I bought a Baron a couple weeks ago.

[kortopates]

3 hours ago, jlunseth said:

The first advantage of the 252/Encore and the Bravo, over the 231, is not the wastegate in my view.  I have the Merlyn semi-auto wastegate and although it involves a little more work than a truly automatic wastegate, it is not that big a deal.  However, the 231 has a single battery, 12(14) volt system with a single alternator, and the alternator is vulnerable.  Actually, its not the alternator so much as the coupler, a clutch device in the drive of the alternator.  Lose the alternator (which I have had happen) in a single battery system, and you do not have much reserve to penetrate any IMC, shoot an approach, and make a safe landing.  In fact, you get to choose between flying with the Master on and using valuable battery resources, or turning it off to save your reserve and then having your whole panel go dark including the engine gauges.  Better hope you are VFR (I was the one time it happened to me in the air, thankfully).  

The 252/Encore are both dual battery, dual alternator, 24 volt systems.  You have redundancy, which in my view is very valuable, life-saving even.  Actually, I believe there are some early serial numbered 252's that are 12 volt, so check that, but most are 24.  Most also have redundant vacuum pumps, which is another point of potential failure with serious consequences.

Interesting comments. On  the single alternator /single battery, issue it reminds me of when I did my first across the country flight in my new to me 231. IMC at night with everything turned on including lights, pitot heat, prop heat and the old radar (which was pretty useless but drew a lot of power). This how I learned the 231 electrical system could not keep up with all the factory installed systems. The alternator could not keep up and the battery mostly drained enough so that  the Alt CB popped and most everything went dark. After shedding as much electrical demand as possible and recycling the alternator  I was able to get what I needed back on and reverse the trend on the battery so that it was charging and continue the flight. But no fun. In fairness, with modern avionics and ditching the useless radar for nexrad the electrical demands were greatly reduced. But the 252 with the dual alternator option provides 28V with 2 60/70amp alternators which is 4x times the juice - so its never a problem and these days with LED or HID lighting and modern avionics I doubt you see too many complaints with electrical system in the 231's except for its lack of redundancy.

Minor correction on the "The 252/Encore are both dual battery, dual alternator, 24 volt systems"  The 252/Encores do not have dual battery's and not all have dual alternators - Dual alternators was one of the few non-standard options including differences in avionics packages. (possibly the later Encore make dual alternators standard, but not 252's) But dual alternators is perhaps the most sought after option. Since the belt driven alternator run at a faster rpm, the dual alternator option solves the higher coming in speed for the low voltage light to come on at low idle speed, secondly since the belt alternator takes most of the load, the gear driven alternator coupling last much longer and is cheaper to maintain long term (my near 1600 hr coupler is still going strong).

Also all 252/Encores have the electric standby vacuum system.

Personally, and my opinion, with dual alternators a second battery offers nothing more than ballast weight. And luckily the 252/Encore's don't need the ballast weight so we don't have the expense of replacing dual battery's like the Rocket's and long bodies do but most of those birds don't have dual alternators so I would definitely want one and in my book and unlimited amount of backup current in the form of a second alternator beets out 30-45 minutes of backup battery reserve  anytime. I came back from Central America once after loosing one alternator only because I had another one. 

I get FIKI envy in the winters too! It would be nice to have and luckily its an available option with the 252's with Dual Alternators. 

[peevee]

7 minutes ago, kortopates said:

I get FIKI envy in the winters too! It would be nice to have and luckily its an available option with the 252's with Dual Alternators. 

Me too. A fiki bravo is a heck of a bargain on the market.

Don't settle for inadvertent, it's like not having TKS at all and you're never sure you can depend on it to get you out of trouble. Though the same might be said for any TKS, lol

[marooneypilot]

20 minutes ago, peevee said:

Don't settle for inadvertent, it's like not having TKS at all and you're never sure you can depend on it to get you out of trouble. Though the same might be said for any TKS, lol

I think I'd disagree with this. Certainly not having FIKI means that you need to fly more like you would with no TKS whatsoever. However, I feel much more comfortable flying in conditions where there is no known icing around yet temps and dewpoints are ripe for formation. I've had two run-ins with inadvertent icing and both times was glad to have the TKS.

First was on a flight from Santa Fe to Austin, TX. A big low was on my route and I routed to skirt it since I wasn't going to top it. But even so my path did take me through IMC for about 10 miles at 13,000'. As I approached the area of IMC I anticipated some ice even though it wasn't forecast, and I was right. Anti-ice was overwhelmed by the buildup but de-ice kept me safe until I could get out of the conditions a few minutes later. Sure, at 13000' I had other options if I didn't have TKS at all, but it was nice to be able to enjoy the capabilities afforded to me by the inadvertent TKS.

Second was a recent cold snap in Austin on a local flight. Even though there was no visible moisture or forecast icing, temps and dewpoints were close enough to freezing that I started picking up windshield ice about 200' AGL. Being able to flick on TKS and blast the windshield to keep flying and visibility for long enough to make some safe decisions. As it happens, on that flight warmer dryer air was only a few miles away so the flight could continue, but had I not had TKS I would certainly have scrubbed immediately.

Would I rather have FIKI? Of course!

Would I equate inadvertent to no TKS at all? No, definitely not.

[jlunseth]

1 hour ago, kortopates said:

On  the single alternator /single battery, issue it reminds me of when I did my first across the country flight in my new to me 231. IMC at night with everything turned on including lights, pitot heat, prop heat and the old radar (which was pretty useless but drew a lot of power). This how I learned the 231 electrical system could not keep up with all the factory installed systems. The alternator could not keep up and the battery mostly drained enough so that  the Alt CB popped and most everything went dark. After shedding as much electrical demand as possible and recycling the alternator  I was able to get what I needed back on and reverse the trend on the battery so that it was charging and continue the flight. But no fun. In fairness, with modern avionics and ditching the useless radar for nexrad the electrical demands were greatly reduced. But the 252 with the dual alternator option provides 28V with 2 60/70amp alternators which is 4x times the juice - so its never a problem and these days with LED or HID lighting and modern avionics I doubt you see too many complaints with electrical system in the 231's except for its lack of redundancy.

Minor correction on the "The 252/Encore are both dual battery, dual alternator, 24 volt systems"  The 252/Encores do not have dual battery's and not all have dual alternators - Dual alternators was one of the few non-standard options including differences in avionics packages. (possibly the later Encore make dual alternators standard, but not 252's) But dual alternators is perhaps the most sought after option. Since the belt driven alternator run at a faster rpm, the dual alternator option solves the higher coming in speed for the low voltage light to come on at low idle speed, secondly since the belt alternator takes most of the load, the gear driven alternator coupling last much longer and is cheaper to maintain long term (my near 1600 hr coupler is still going strong).

Also all 252/Encores have the electric standby vacuum system.

I had all kinds of draw problems when I first got the aircraft.  The old landing light and strobes drew a ton of current.  One night when I first got my plane I was out doing practice landings in the dark with a bunch of my CFI friends sitting in the shack watching.  Pulling into the parking lot, I overleaned the engine and it quit.  Doing night work, with lots of taxiing at idle and all those old style lights running, I had run the battery down without even realizing it, and all my friends came out to push me into the ramp.  They got a good laugh at my expense.  How embarrassing!  I have LED lights for everything now, and a much better panel, and the 70 amp alternator does a good job as long as the coupler is good.  Mooney supplied a 100 amp for awhile trying to get over the problem of no charging during low speed taxiing, but that did nothing, the gearing is just too low and it did not matter what the max output of the alternator was.  I have not had those problems for quite awhile, although a 231 or for that matter a 252 with legacy incandescent lights would certainly be challenged.  The flaw in the 231 system is that coupler, it fails and no alternator at all.  

I was not aware the dual batteries and alternator were an option, I do remember reading that some early 252's had 12 volt systems.  All the 252's I have seen had dual setups.  Good thing for the OP to know if he buys a 252, check to make sure it has "duality."

Having flown around looking for a landing spot with the Master off once, and losing the vacuum once, both thankfully in VMC, gave me a much greater appreciation for redundancy than when I first got the 231.

[peevee]

1 hour ago, djm181 said:

I think I'd disagree with this. Certainly not having FIKI means that you need to fly more like you would with no TKS whatsoever. However, I feel much more comfortable flying in conditions where there is no known icing around yet temps and dewpoints are ripe for formation. I've had two run-ins with inadvertent icing and both times was glad to have the TKS.

First was on a flight from Santa Fe to Austin, TX. A big low was on my route and I routed to skirt it since I wasn't going to top it. But even so my path did take me through IMC for about 10 miles at 13,000'. As I approached the area of IMC I anticipated some ice even though it wasn't forecast, and I was right. Anti-ice was overwhelmed by the buildup but de-ice kept me safe until I could get out of the conditions a few minutes later. Sure, at 13000' I had other options if I didn't have TKS at all, but it was nice to be able to enjoy the capabilities afforded to me by the inadvertent TKS.

Second was a recent cold snap in Austin on a local flight. Even though there was no visible moisture or forecast icing, temps and dewpoints were close enough to freezing that I started picking up windshield ice about 200' AGL. Being able to flick on TKS and blast the windshield to keep flying and visibility for long enough to make some safe decisions. As it happens, on that flight warmer dryer air was only a few miles away so the flight could continue, but had I not had TKS I would certainly have scrubbed immediately.

Would I rather have FIKI? Of course!

Would I equate inadvertent to no TKS at all? No, definitely not.

The point is you need to treat no hazard TKS as if you have none at all. I would not dispatch into conditions I feel icing is even a possibility with either system and the cirrus no hazard TKS is pretty good I think.

[Yooper Rocketman]

I have over 2000 hours in TKS equipped aircraft, probably 85% in non-FIKI.  I've only had two failures in icing conditions and both were in the FIKI airplane.   Sorry, you're not going to sell me on the huge safety advantage of FIKI.

Tom

[peevee]

8 minutes ago, Yooper Rocketman said:

I have over 2000 hours in TKS equipped aircraft, probably 85% in non-FIKI.  I've only had two failures in icing conditions and both were in the FIKI airplane.   Sorry, you're not going to sell me on the huge safety advantage of FIKI.

Tom

Well, in the cirrus it's redundancy and fluid capacity. Two pumps, twice the capacity, windshield spray bar etc. Also better tail coverage.

Though the prop slingers coat the shit out of the windshield...

Too many issues with panels wetting out fully for me to put much faith in any TKS, but I'll take fiki to over nothing. 

 

If the god damn airplane would hold together long enough to go find some weather this winter I'd go test it but noooo our mechanic had to destroy our engine.

 

The Mooney's all have 5ish gallon takes iirc. But the fiki adds a heated stall and maybe heated fuel vents and other nice to have stuff in ice.

[Yooper Rocketman]

Here's my "non-FIKI" doing it's job on my Lancair.  I had an 1/8" on it pretty quick and hit hi mode.  It was flowing in 30 seconds and the ice was off in less than 2 minutes.  WAY FASTER than the FIKI Bonanza I fly.  Just to be clear, that was "un-forecast icing".  If you look where I live, you will see I would give up 60% of my winter flying without TKS.  To add another datum point; prior to my first TKS install I flew in a twin with "certified de-cing" in the way of boots.  While we were slogging along picking up ice, the pilot (I'm not twin rated) noticed his side was not working.  There we were in icing with the boots on the right wing popping ice and the left wing accumulating it.  I hadn't thought of that until now, but that's another "certified system" that failed on me.

My first icing encounter in 1999-2000 with TKS was over Cheyenne WY and in low mode I saw ice accumulating on the elevator counterweight (that was a known problem area on the Lancair I was building, so something I've always looked at).  I turned it up to high mode and it washed the ice off the counterweight.  You won't get that feature with boots.  Needless to say, I'm not a fan of boots.

Having a way to shed ice or keep it from accumulating on my airplane with a non-FIKI system is far better than not having de-ice at all.  The biggest key for me is to assess my outs before launching.  I declined a kidney transplant many years ago that the guy probably never got it, which means he's probably not with us anymore, due to icing conditions without safe outs.  He was pretty upset, but it made no sense for both of us to die that night.  I'm still here and he may be as well or, at the least, lived for some period of time after that lost opportunity.  Assess your skills and equipment, then don't write a check for which you don't have both of those conditions covered.

Tom

[peevee]

It's your airplane you operate it how you want. I choose not to operate that way in untested equipment.

The sad thing about the boots is you'd think you would cycle them before encountering ice to test them. I've never flown a booted plane...

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, Yooper Rocketman said:

Here's my "non-FIKI" doing it's job on my Lancair.  I had an 1/8" on it pretty quick and hit hi mode.  It was flowing in 30 seconds and the ice was off in less than 2 minutes.  WAY FASTER than the FIKI Bonanza I fly.  Just to be clear, that was "un-forecast icing". 

 

Tom why is your Lancair system priming so much faster?  Did you do something in the build or is some trick other TKS users could do?

As for me in FIKI vs no-FIKI - I sort of really like my no-fiki system.  I don't want to fly in ice with a piston single - fiki or not - but the legal requirement of a no fiki system reminds me - no-no-no don't go there!  So maybe I am on average safer with a not fiki system and avoiding ice than I would be with a fiki system and plowing through?  But I also live in icing country and not forecast ice can happen.  Just like a heated pitot tube on a not fiki airplane, a tks system is nice to have just in case.  Its my out, but its not my strategy, if that makes sense.  

If I had a turboprop, sure I would consider flying ice... carefully.

Edited January 24, 2018 by aviatoreb

[BradB]

24 minutes ago, peevee said:

It's your airplane you operate it how you want. I choose not to operate that way in untested equipment.

The sad thing about the boots is you'd think you would cycle them before encountering ice to test them. I've never flown a booted plane...

I just started flying a booted plane.   If I am taking off into a known icing layer, I will cycle them during taxi/run-up to make sure that they are working.

My Fiki acclaim did fairly well in the ice.  But I was always paranoid about the panels filling out everywhere.  It wasn't ever an issue, but it was a source of stress.

In my very limited boot experience, I have been impressed.   It also helps to have a PT-6 hanging out front rapidly climbing out.   Although, the Mooney was no slouch and pretty much has the same climb (almost)  as the PA-46T.   But the PA-46T does it with so much less drama.

 No matter what the system, it is meant to get you out of ice, not fly in ice in the planes that we fly.

 

Brad

[aviatoreb]

44 minutes ago, BradB said:

I just started flying a booted plane.   If I am taking off into a known icing layer, I will cycle them during taxi/run-up to make sure that they are working.

My Fiki acclaim did fairly well in the ice.  But I was always paranoid about the panels filling out everywhere.  It wasn't ever an issue, but it was a source of stress.

In my very limited boot experience, I have been impressed.   It also helps to have a PT-6 hanging out front rapidly climbing out.   Although, the Mooney was no slouch and pretty much has the same climb (almost)  as the PA-46T.   But the PA-46T does it with so much less drama.

 No matter what the system, it is meant to get you out of ice, not fly in ice in the planes that we fly.

 

Brad

What do you mean drama?

..you are in a turbo prop now - not a plane that I fly in but I always figured that a turbo prop would be good enough.  When you mean not that we fly in - you must mean a big jet with bleed heat?

[BradB]

20 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

What do you mean drama?

..you are in a turbo prop now - not a plane that I fly in but I always figured that a turbo prop would be good enough.  When you mean not that we fly in - you must mean a big jet with bleed heat?

Meant to say that the turbo-prob climbs a little faster but it does so with much less drama - makes it seem effortless.   It is so smooth and has so much extra power available that it seems to climb much faster.    

And yes, you still won’t find me hanging out in ice in the TP. (See TBM crash 2011 out of teterboro)   I’ll leave that for the guys and girls who fly the big iron for a day job.   

 

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by BradB

[aviatoreb]

44 minutes ago, BradB said:

Meant to say that the turbo-prob climbs a little faster but it does so with much less drama - makes it seem effortless.   It is so smooth and has so much extra power available that it seems to climb much faster.    

And yes, you still won’t find me hanging out in ice in the TP. (See TBM crash 2011 out of teterboro)   I’ll leave that for the guys and girls who fly the big iron for a day job.   

 

 

I know that accident.

i flew out of there a few weeks before:

[aviatoreb]

45 minutes ago, BradB said:

Meant to say that the turbo-prob climbs a little faster but it does so with much less drama - makes it seem effortless.   It is so smooth and has so much extra power available that it seems to climb much faster.    

And yes, you still won’t find me hanging out in ice in the TP. (See TBM crash 2011 out of teterboro)   I’ll leave that for the guys and girls who fly the big iron for a day job.   

 

 

I still don’t know what you mean by less drama pls explain.

[Yooper Rocketman]

1 hour ago, aviatoreb said:

Tom why is your Lancair system priming so much faster?  Did you do something in the build or is some trick other TKS users could do?

The wing is substantially shorter, no vertical panel and no prop TKS spray bars (heated prop to avoid fluid ingestion in engine).  The same pump as the Mooneys and Bo's with a lot less places to put the fluid.  I am really impressed with the operation on the Lancair.

Tom