Advice on turbo Mooney

[bcwiseguy]

All, I will be looking to buy a turbo powered Mooney later this year. I owned and flew a 1966 E model Mooney for several years but sold it when the family was young and growing. Now that they are grown and the wife and I have grandkids, we are ready to start traveling. I’m fairly set on a turbo as we will be traveling west over the mountains and I want something that can easily get up high without anemic climb performance above 10k. 

I’ve been looking at the 252 but would prefer the extra useful load of an Encore. As well, I am looking at the Bravo. The newer Acclaim is out of my budget. I guess what I am really wanting is honest assessments of the 252, Encore, and Bravo. I would love to know realistic climb rates, fuel burn, cruise speeds, and especially any positives and negatives about each model and how they compare to each other. I’ve read that the 252 and Encore perform more or less the same but with the benefit of the Encore having a useful load of an extra 230lbs. The Encore seems a very rare bird to find though whereas there seem to be a lot more Bravos and 252 available.

 

Also, if anyone has experience with a turbo Mooney compared to a turbo Beech 33 or 35, I would definitely be interested to hear. I’ve been on the Beech forum and read some of the opinions there but naturally those are slanted towards the Beech aircraft.

Thanks in advance.

[milotron]

With only passenger experience in turbo Beech, I would say that aside for the turbo performance, you are down to normal Beech vs Mooney discussions. I have the 231 with 252 upgrade. Awesome performance from a small engine and correspondingly small fuel flows. I think you are only into 550 size turbos in the Beech, similar to Bravo.

Encores are great if you can find them. Aside from useful load, the 231/252 perform similarly for much lower capital cost.

Just my very biased opinion...

 

iain

[gsxrpilot]

I was doing the same research about a year ago. I came to the conclusion that the Bravo was out of my economic comfort zone. I could handle the acquisition cost but the running costs and a possible engine replacement would just be too painful.

So I decided on an M20K. Obviously the Encore is the pinnacle of the K model but they are rare and command a premium price. The 231 is just to fiddly for me and was afraid I'd  always wish I'd stepped up for a 252. The other thing about the 252 is that they can be upgraded to an Encore and get the corresponding 230 lb UL increase. 

I've been flying my 252 for about a year now. I've owned it for a year and a half, but it was down for maintenance and upgrades for just over 6 months. I've been very happy with the decision and will do the Encore upgrade at the next annual.

[squeaky.stow]

42 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

I was doing the same research about a year ago. I came to the conclusion that the Bravo was out of my economic comfort zone. I could handle the acquisition cost but the running costs and a possible engine replacement would just be too painful.

So I decided on an M20K. Obviously the Encore is the pinnacle of the K model but they are rare and command a premium price. The 231 is just to fiddly for me and was afraid I'd  always wish I'd stepped up for a 252. The other thing about the 252 is that they can be upgraded to an Encore and get the corresponding 230 lb UL increase. 

I've been flying my 252 for about a year now. I've owned it for a year and a half, but it was down for maintenance and upgrades for just over 6 months. I've been very happy with the decision and will do the Encore upgrade at the next annual.

Agree completely. If you can find a good 252, you won't be disappointed. You can always do the Encore conversion later if you find you really need that extra 230 lbs. 

 

[Yooper Rocketman]

I fly a Mooney Rocket and a Tornado Alley turbo normalized Bonanza.  The Bonanza is a little slower but can run LOP so fuel  burn is a bit better than my Rocket.  The Rocket is using a de-rated 310 HP TSIO520 (305 HP) that is really tough to get running LOP.  The Rocket is sort of a hot rod, at the expense of a bit less efficiency.  I would think the 252 is the better efficiency of your turbo options, but would defer to Paul and others on that.

The Bonanza is nice if you're hauling a crew with the 6 seats.  For a fat wing, I find it surprisingly quick and efficient (LOP).  That said, I get less excited flying it verses my Mooney.  There's a lot less seat adjustment and you sit higher so my legs cramp on longer flights. You can't stretch them out like in the Mooney.  I just flew a 3.5 hour leg on Friday in my Mooney and was not sore at all when we landed.  After two hours in the Bo I'm ready to get out!

Tom

[jackn]

The difference between the 252 and the Encore, other than the higher UL is 10 extra hp in essentially the same engine.  In cruise this doesn’t really buy you anything. Same power settings, fuel burn will get you the same performance. You do see a difference in the climb performance however. I can’t quantify, but it is quite noticeable. The turbo management is really simple.

I have done over 5 hr flights and have found this plane to be very comfortable. 

Also, when flying in the mountains, I have hit some heavy turbulence, I was glad to be in a Mooney, although I wish it came with 4 point seat belts. 

Edited January 22, 2018 by jackn

[larryb]

The encore comes with dual alternators. Because of this it is possible to get FIKI TKS. It also comes with the long body landing gear.

[gsxrpilot]

6 minutes ago, larryb said:

The encore comes with dual alternators. Because of this it is possible to get FIKI TKS. It also comes with the long body landing gear.

So does the 252.

[carusoam]

Where are our Bravo brothers tonight...?

Question for the OP...

Does any of your backseaters pay the bills or plan your way post retirement housing?

The back seat and baggage area of the Long Body are pure luxury... (for a four seat airplane) 

The Turbo Lycoming 540 is great.  Some people will run it LOP.  But, without the nice tuned intake of the Conti IO550 the big Lyc isn't very smooth in the LOP category....

Somebody mentioned the Rocket, that's worth a good look....

Another thing to consider is the the Long Bodies with the 310hp IO550.  Sure it’s not TN'd, but make sure you want the TN performance over the NA IO550.... How High do you want to fly?

Best regards,

-a-

[JohnB]

11 hours ago, bcwiseguy said:

All, I will be looking to buy a turbo powered Mooney later this year. I owned and flew a 1966 E model Mooney for several years but sold it when the family was young and growing. Now that they are grown and the wife and I have grandkids, we are ready to start traveling. I’m fairly set on a turbo as we will be traveling west over the mountains and I want something that can easily get up high without anemic climb performance above 10k. 

 

You will not have anemic performance above 10k with a Bravo. Mine gets up to 900 fpm comfy climb above 10k, and around 600 fpm comfy climb above 20k. You'll get well over 200kt speeds above 18k consistently. You will pay for that though in fuel cost.

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

[bcwiseguy]

13 hours ago, milotron said:

With only passenger experience in turbo Beech, I would say that aside for the turbo performance, you are down to normal Beech vs Mooney discussions. I have the 231 with 252 upgrade. Awesome performance from a small engine and correspondingly small fuel flows. I think you are only into 550 size turbos in the Beech, similar to Bravo.

Encores are great if you can find them. Aside from useful load, the 231/252 perform similarly for much lower capital cost.

Just my very biased opinion...

 

iain

Ian,

The Beech turbos strike me as a comparison to the Bravo rather than the 252/Encore. The turbo Beech seems to be a very popular aircraft with Beech flyers and I'm trying to keep an open mind to alternatives to the Mooney. Personally, I have always favored the 252/Encore over the Bravo since it is closest to my previous E model in terms of fuel burn.....and there is just nothing that compares to the speed and efficiency of the Mooney. The extra speed of the Bravo would be nice but frankly is not really necessary.....especially considering the increase fuel burn and the cost of overhaul of the TIO-540 (from what I am seeing). Still, I am open to the Bravo.

[bcwiseguy]

13 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

I was doing the same research about a year ago. I came to the conclusion that the Bravo was out of my economic comfort zone. I could handle the acquisition cost but the running costs and a possible engine replacement would just be too painful.

So I decided on an M20K. Obviously the Encore is the pinnacle of the K model but they are rare and command a premium price. The 231 is just to fiddly for me and was afraid I'd  always wish I'd stepped up for a 252. The other thing about the 252 is that they can be upgraded to an Encore and get the corresponding 230 lb UL increase. 

I've been flying my 252 for about a year now. I've owned it for a year and a half, but it was down for maintenance and upgrades for just over 6 months. I've been very happy with the decision and will do the Encore upgrade at the next annual.

Paul,

Thanks for chiming in. I love hearing others who have gone thru what I am going thru and can provide some insight/guidance. I definitely prefer the 252 over the 231...for the same reasons from what I've read of the 231.

I am close to you as I live in San Antonio ( I used to live in Austin BTW). I would love to meet you sometime and check out your 252. Would love to see how you upgraded it and shoot the breeze about your experience and 252's in general. Let me know if you're up for a meet sometime. I can easily come up to Austin (the wife and I still get up there often as we love and miss Austin).

[bcwiseguy]

12 hours ago, squeaky.stow said:

Agree completely. If you can find a good 252, you won't be disappointed. You can always do the Encore conversion later if you find you really need that extra 230 lbs. 

 

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.

[Danb]

I've had. Bravo since 2006, awesome plane, nice and heavy to handle bumps, likes fuel when flying fast, not bad similar to Beech if you slow down to beech speeds, yesterday fuel burn 14 per hour 5500 ft, 165 knots true, bump it up for trips  16-18.5 gal per hour per 175-205 knots true depending on altitude, quite a bit of versatility. No major repairs in 13 yrs, just normal Bravo maintenance.

 

Good luck finding your Mooney, there all GREAT

[bcwiseguy]

10 hours ago, Yooper Rocketman said:

I fly a Mooney Rocket and a Tornado Alley turbo normalized Bonanza.  The Bonanza is a little slower but can run LOP so fuel  burn is a bit better than my Rocket.  The Rocket is using a de-rated 310 HP TSIO520 (305 HP) that is really tough to get running LOP.  The Rocket is sort of a hot rod, at the expense of a bit less efficiency.  I would think the 252 is the better efficiency of your turbo options, but would defer to Paul and others on that.

The Bonanza is nice if you're hauling a crew with the 6 seats.  For a fat wing, I find it surprisingly quick and efficient (LOP).  That said, I get less excited flying it verses my Mooney.  There's a lot less seat adjustment and you sit higher so my legs cramp on longer flights. You can't stretch them out like in the Mooney.  I just flew a 3.5 hour leg on Friday in my Mooney and was not sore at all when we landed.  After two hours in the Bo I'm ready to get out!

Tom

Tom, thanks for your input....it is very informative and a bit surprising. Everything I've read so far indicated that the Bonanzas are more comfortable aircraft than the Mooney. The other accounts I've read don't really go into specifics of why one is more comfortable than another so your description of the difference in how each aircraft sits is very useful. Much appreciated!

[bcwiseguy]

6 hours ago, carusoam said:

Where are our Bravo brothers tonight...?

Question for the OP...

Does any of your backseaters pay the bills or plan your way post retirement housing?

The back seat and baggage area of the Long Body are pure luxury... (for a four seat airplane) 

The Turbo Lycoming 540 is great.  Some people will run it LOP.  But, without the nice tuned intake of the Conti IO550 the big Lyc isn't very smooth in the LOP category....

Somebody mentioned the Rocket, that's worth a good look....

Another thing to consider is the the Long Bodies with the 310hp IO550.  Sure it’s not TN'd, but make sure you want the TN performance over the NA IO550.... How High do you want to fly?

Best regards,

-a-

Unfortunately, the long body Mooney's are out of my budget. In a perfect world I would go with an Acclaim.....one of the new Acclaim Ultras would be nice!

Not sure the Rocket would best fit my mission needs. It seems to have serious performance but what I really need is long legs, at least 160kts cruise, and ability to get above 15k altitude easily.

[bcwiseguy]

3 hours ago, JohnB said:

You will not have anemic performance above 10k with a Bravo. Mine gets up to 900 fpm comfy climb above 10k, and around 600 fpm comfy climb above 20k. You'll get well over 200kt speeds above 18k consistently. You will pay for that though in fuel cost.

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

John, the fuel burn on the Bravo is one of my chief concerns.....along with operation and maintenance on the TIO-540. I do really like the performance of the Bravo however. What is typical fuel burn and cruise speed of a Bravo at say 55% power and 65% power?

[bcwiseguy]

15 minutes ago, Danb said:

I've had. Bravo since 2006, awesome plane, nice and heavy to handle bumps, likes fuel when flying fast, not bad similar to Beech if you slow down to beech speeds, yesterday fuel burn 14 per hour 5500 ft, 165 knots true, bump it up for trips  16-18.5 gal per hour per 175-205 knots true depending on altitude, quite a bit of versatility. No major repairs in 13 yrs, just normal Bravo maintenance.

 

Good luck finding your Mooney, there all GREAT

Dan, for the cruise performance you listed, what % power do each of those translate to? 14GPH at 165knots seems only slightly more than a 252 (at a higher power setting I'm sure). Also, are you running ROP or LOP?

[Danb]

I run ROP, like most Bravo owners, mine actually can run LOP, e.g., 26/2300, 50Lop 155 knots 4000 12.8, although it's quite boring. The performance envelope in my Bravo is huge, I've been playing with numerous settings to see what he will do, unfortunately I don't write them down so most is by memory and some of us are let's say a little Gray uptop. Really I'm truly amazed by the parameters that's available. I can get close to J or K performance and efficiency, close is relative e.g. 150 knots 12 gal,  my J was more like 10 gal.

[gsxrpilot]

2 hours ago, bcwiseguy said:

Thanks for chiming in. I love hearing others who have gone thru what I am going thru and can provide some insight/guidance. I definitely prefer the 252 over the 231...for the same reasons from what I've read of the 231.

I am close to you as I live in San Antonio ( I used to live in Austin BTW). I would love to meet you sometime and check out your 252. Would love to see how you upgraded it and shoot the breeze about your experience and 252's in general. Let me know if you're up for a meet sometime. I can easily come up to Austin (the wife and I still get up there often as we love and miss Austin).

I'd love to get together. And I'd be happy to take you up in my 252 and see what you think of it.

The best speed I've ever gotten out of my 252 is 205 TAS at FL250 burning 14gph ROP. For me 14gph is when I'm pushing her flat out which for me is 75% and 100 ROP. So that's the worst fuel burn you'll get. Recently I flew 1150 nautical miles from Austin to eastern NC. I was at FL210 and FL230 for the whole trip, LOP at 9gph, 4:50 time enroute, and used 51 of my 76 gal. There were tailwinds involved.

[bcwiseguy]

16 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

I'd love to get together. And I'd be happy to take you up in my 252 and see what you think of it.

The best speed I've ever gotten out of my 252 is 205 TAS at FL250 burning 14gph ROP. For me 14gph is when I'm pushing her flat out which for me is 75% and 100 ROP. So that's the worst fuel burn you'll get. Recently I flew 1150 nautical miles from Austin to eastern NC. I was at FL210 and FL230 for the whole trip, LOP at 9gph, 4:50 time enroute, and used 51 of my 76 gal. There were tailwinds involved.

Paul, that sounds awesome. It sounds like you do the kind of flying I will be doing....long distances. I have family in the Southeast, West Coast and Midwest as well as friends in the Northeast. I specifically want the turbo to be able to go high over the mountains and to be able to take advantage of flying in the teens (or higher when needed).

[peevee]

3 minutes ago, bcwiseguy said:

Paul, that sounds awesome. It sounds like you do the kind of flying I will be doing....long distances. I have family in the Southeast, West Coast and Midwest as well as friends in the Northeast. I specifically want the turbo to be able to go high over the mountains and to be able to take advantage of flying in the teens (or higher when needed).

sounds like you want a fiki bravo.

[bcwiseguy]

7 minutes ago, peevee said:

sounds like you want a fiki bravo.

That is one of the reasons why I am also looking at the Bravo. I don't necessarily think need the Bravo for my mission profile but it would certainly fit along with the 252/Encore.

[marooneypilot]

17 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

So I decided on an M20K. Obviously the Encore is the pinnacle of the K model but they are rare and command a premium price. The 231 is just to fiddly for me and was afraid I'd  always wish I'd stepped up for a 252. The other thing about the 252 is that they can be upgraded to an Encore and get the corresponding 230 lb UL increase. 

Paul, interested to hear the differences in fiddliness between the 231 and 252. I fly a 231 (you know her actually), so curious to hear your experiences.

David

[PaulM]

3 hours ago, bcwiseguy said:

Unfortunately, the long body Mooney's are out of my budget. In a perfect world I would go with an Acclaim.....one of the new Acclaim Ultras would be nice!

Bravo's are long bodies.     Their only downside is the fuel burn.    Want fast?  the Acclaim will go 20kts faster on the same fuel burn... want efficiency?. get a K.  The bravo hits the faster but can't afford the Acclaim and want the long body space. 

I normally run between 17-18gph unless I need to fly LOP for the range (800-900nm).   Speed falls off quickly LOP, and we bought the Bravo to go fast. 

I've been flying the 231 motor in a senaca II...   you definitely need to fiddle with it from takeoff all the way to cruise.   I would prefer the 252 or Bravo.. set it  and forget it.   It is just the fixed waste gate.. don't over boost on takeoff, keep increasing the MP on climb etc... the pressure controlled variable waste-gate in the Bravo is set full power... leave it.. perhaps select 34" for cruise climb if you feel like it.  With the senaca I have to look down at the instruments during the takeoff roll to set power and keep it within the boost limits.