Mooney Upgrade Time - Need Advice

[FoxMike]

I will offer you this bit of advise.  Bravo's are great airplanes.  They can really handle the weather if properly equipped.  The thing to be careful of is stretching to far financially to reach just the right Bravo and find after you own it for a while that needs big ticket maintenance.  Exhaust maintenance can easily run 3k.  Leaky tanks 5k.  New Ox bottle 2k.  New donuts 1.5K.  A good prebuy will uncover some of the problems but not all.  After you make the seller happy make sure you have some reserves to cover the inevitable.

[M016576]

7 hours ago, irishpilot said:

Y'all have given me a lot to mull over. I think if I commit to a long body, I'm going to spend for FIKI. I'm also going to mull over price. My $150-180k is a cash buy. I'm trying to avoid financing. Operating costs are not my primary concern in a single. I've got twin time and that's where operating costs really make a difference. Although aquisition twin prices are currently very depressed.

I think turbo is also where I'm leaning due to I like to fly high. However, I don't know much about the Ovation. I'll do some more research on that.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
 

Hmm.... 

a seneca II or C310 burns about 20-22 GPH in cruise... which isn’t far off from a large bore turbo.

a NA large bore mooney is in the 12-13gph realm

a 4 cylinder NA mooney is down at 8-9GPH in cruise

The difference between the operating costs (fuel/oil/O2) of a light twin and a turbo’d mooney may not be too far off- but the operating costs between the NA and turbo singles are pretty significant... like 60% difference.

Ive played this game too- as a pretty sweet Seneca III came up for sale on my field at a rediculously low price.  You can pay for a lot of avgas for 50K.... but the problem is- one doozy of an annual and you’re out some of that “avgas money.”

If you really want to spend your money in the flight levels, and your mission is just you or you and one other pax to go from point A->point B, then a bravo is a great ride.  With fiki TKS right now, they go for about 210.  There are three rockets available right now that I’ve seen posted for sale- one has TKS- but I’m about 99.9% sure it’s not FIKI.  It also has a weather radar- which is a waste of useful load if you ask me... so it’s probably somewhere around 820lbs (but that’s just my estimate).  Just don’t expect to be able to load up your family like you did in your E-model, which despite the smaller power plant and airframe, most likely had 150-200lbs more in useful load, and burned far less fuel per hour (albeit at a 30-40kts penalty).

a light twin might be in your wheelhouse if you’re seriously thinking the Bravo is for you- your family would probably appreciate it more- although lots of extra room for those solo trips.

[KLRDMD]

7 hours ago, M016576 said:

a seneca II or C310 burns about 20-22 GPH in cruise... which isn’t far off from a large bore turbo.

Ive played this game too- as a pretty sweet Seneca III came up for sale on my field at a rediculously low price.  You can pay for a lot of avgas for 50K.... but the problem is- one doozy of an annual and you’re out some of that “avgas money.”

a light twin might be in your wheelhouse if you’re seriously thinking the Bravo is for you- your family would probably appreciate it more- although lots of extra room for those solo trips.

Twins are definitely worth looking at. Those that have actually owned them can tell you they don't cost that much more to own and fly than a heavy single. I've written somewhat extensively on the topic here.

I could get my Seneca III to run LOP. Most Seneca IIs can't. I burned 18-19 GPH total for 165 KTAS in the 10,000 ft range. And that cabin is absolutely HUGE, a full 7" wider than most light twins. The back door and club seating are very nice for families with small children.

Singles can lead to outrageous annuals too, that's not limited to twins.

I bought my first twin after owning a Bravo. My Bravo burned 19.4 GPH in cruise (most Bravos don't run LOP well, mine didn't). I figured if I was going to burn about 20 GPH, I wanted a second engine.

Comparing my previous Bravo to my current Baron: The annual on my Baron is very close to what the annuals ran on my Bravo so no noticeable increased expense there. The hangar's the same, insurance is less on the Baron due to a lower hull value. The Baron climbs faster but the Bravo cruises faster (on similar fuel flows). I also fly the Baron at a lower altitude than I did the Bravo since the Bravo required higher flights for better efficiency. And then I was wearing oxygen regularly. A typical trip has very little difference in total time or fuel burn. And you can overhaul two IO-470 engines for about the price of one TSIO-540. It just doesn't cost that much more to fly a Baron than a Bravo.

But, I have over 1700 lb useful load, six seats and nose baggage (and did I mention air conditioning) in the Baron that the Bravo doesn't have. And the Baron actually climbs in most flight profiles after losing an engine. The Bravo, not so much 

[kortopates]

After reading through this thread you all make the case that by the numbers the 252 Encore is the definitely the sweat spot in (turbo) efficiency. With a useful load of 1134 lbs and fuel burn in the NA range of 12-13 flown ROP or 10-10.5 GPH flown LOP and doing over 180+KTAS at 16K its at the apex of Mooney efficiency. Nor it does it really give anything up with its 75.6 Gal Tanks which are extended-able to 105.6 gal. But with plenty of time in the longbody's its fair to say its principal drawback is that it needs to go high even more so than the Bravo and Acclaim to get its performance or to put it another way the higher horsepower Bravo and Acclaim will allow faster lower level cruise by as much as 20 knots and steeper climb gradients yet with considerably higher fuel burn rates.   But the Encore is still climbing at 700-800'/min too the flight levels. With Dual alternators and being FIKI capable, the only other con in IMO is that its still not a long body. I do find that each successive stretch of the Mooney airframe has led to a more stable platform with the Acclaim at the top. If operational efficiency  wasn't a concern for me I'd trade my Encore for an Acclaim in a heart beat since I do feel its Mooney's ultimate achievement, but I appreciate the miserly fuel flow of the 252/Encore with flight level turbo performance which makes the Encore Mooney's ultimate in effeciency. And has been said above, turbo isn't just for high density altitude takeoff's and topping mountain ranges; it provides so much more capability to cross country flight in finding smooth air and enabling flying above weather in VMC - I don't think I could ever go back to a NA aircraft unless I was limited to making hamburger runs.