Bravo vs 252 Confused

[Rickymooneyflyer]

Forgive me if this is a dumb question; but why are Bravos almost the same price as a 252s. Why would anyone pay more for a 252? I understand the fuel burn rate is lower in the 252 so its cheaper to fly. Also, I understand that are not as many 252s produced so there are supply and demand factors. What am I missing?

[201er]

8 minutes ago, Rickymooneyflyer said:

Why would anyone pay more for a 252? I understand the fuel burn rate is lower in the 252 so its cheaper to fly. Also, I understand that are not as many 252s produced so there are supply and demand factors. What am I missing?

I think you pretty much answered your question. Also I think the engine in the 252 is less expensive to overhaul (but I am not very familiar)

[Bryan]

I own a 252 over a Bravo.  Yes, a Bravo is the next iteration of the turbo-charged Mooneys. For me, I own 252 because of the efficiency and fuel-burn. I can fly at every altitude the M20M can fly but with smaller fuel burn.  Yes, you can pull back the Bravo to 252 speeds and fuel-burn but another factor for me is the useful load.  My 252 has 1110# useful load.  Take a look at the useful load of a Bravo or a "231" M20K.  My 252 is a factory Encore so it has nearly all the amenities (interior, lights, and newer design of the Bravo's) along with the lessons learned in the early Bravos.  The Bravo is also a "long body" compared to the mid-body of the K.  You get more room in the baggage but your 4-seat passengers have the same room.

There is a reason Mooney back in 1997 and 1998 went back to the Mooney M20K 252 "Encore" after making a lot of Bravos in the early 90's... the M20K is a great ship.  

[Rickymooneyflyer]

Yep the K is even more expensive and a rare find. I heard you can convert a 252 to a K for about $20,000 if you can find the parts. I am just trying to understand the pricing. Because it would seem much more cost efficient to convert a 252 than to purchase one. I think there is only one Encore for sale right now at a very high price. More than a 20,000 difference. Apples to Apples.

[Bryan]

Just to be clear, there are several "K" models:

Mooney M20K:  (factory options)

• "231": earlier models that was Mooney's first attempt at turbo-charged "M20J" aircraft: first M20K.  These were produced without an intercooler and a fixed wastegate, 12v system, 3-position cowl flaps.
• "252": next iteration of the M20K.  Imporoved engine design, same displacment but with a factory intercooler and fully automatic wastegate. 24v electrics, fully articulating cowl flaps.
• "252 Encore": Then in 1997 and 1998, they made only 37 "252 Encore" M20K ships as a limited production run.  They updated the engine specs once again with better intake and several changes to the airframe and engine parameters to get an extra 10hp out of the same displacement.

Yes, they came out with a conversion for the middle (standard) "252" to enable owners to upgrade it to an "Encore".  The biggest result of this conversion is the higher useful load... like an extra 230lbs.

There are several other M20K models such as the following.  But all these are STC'd conversions that take one of the above models and improve it further.

• 305 Rocket
• 262 Conversion
• (and maybe another or two)

 

As far as price, the 231 is a great value to step into "turbo" Mooney's but you really need to know how to not hurt the engine as they need better engine management.  They are the cheapest because a lot were produced and people tend to start out with this because of the price but upgrade to a 252, Encore, Bravo, or higher.  They are still a great plane.  I owned one before finding a factory Encore.

The 252 birds are highly saught after because of everything you get with the factory AND the option to upgrade them to an Encore.  A 231 cannot be upgraded to an Encore but most 252's can.

For me and others, the 252 Encore is the perfect plane.  It has all the performance of the sought after 252 but with the higher useful load and highly-updated interior of the Bravo's without the fuel burn.  I do think engine overhaul cost is more on the Bravo but have not been thru that yet with either.  The cost is the highest with his because of supply and demand.  With only 37 produced, they are rarely on the market.  When they are, the sellers know what they have an want top-dollar of them.  I am keeping mine as long as I can.

[Davidv]

I can feel a response from @gsxrpilot pilot coming on :).

I love my Bravo but the fuel burn of a 252 would be nice...

[Bryan]

36 minutes ago, Rickymooneyflyer said:

... I think there is only one Encore for sale right now at a very high price. More than a 20,000 difference. Apples to Apples.

There is a difference between a factory Encore and a 252 converted encore.  (20k difference is up to the buyer/seller)  You have very few chances at a couple of the best Mooney's produced (late model): 252 Encores (M20K), 205 Allegros (M20J)

Examples: They are at least 15-20 years newer.  Second, the interior design is significantly updated.  Exterior lighting has been upgraded.

[Rickymooneyflyer]

4 minutes ago, Davidv said:

I love my Bravo but the fuel burn of a 252 would be nice...

you can dial it down to match if you wanted to some degree I know its a bigger engine. Right?

[Davidv]

1 minute ago, Rickymooneyflyer said:

you can dial it down to match if you wanted to some degree I know its a bigger engine. Right?

I can close some of the gap, but definitely not 10-12gph at 170+ TAS as some have reported on the 252. 

[carqwik]

252 - Continental 360

Bravo - Lycoming 540

Bravo is a wee bit more demanding to fly (IMHO) than the 252 but depending on who you ask also 10-20 kts faster.

I've flown them both - and both are great planes. 

[KSMooniac]

For those of us that get into the weeds with the details... Many Bravo engines will not run LOP so they're forced to run more fuel in cruise beyond the difference from 50-60 more HP over the K which can usually be made to run LOP reliably. This makes a huge difference in fuel consumption that will add up to many tens of thousands of dollars over a TBO run.

If I were to upgrade from my J I'd likely go for a 252 or Encore for all of the reasons mentioned above, but I'd consider a Bravo if I found an example that ran LOP and if the price were right. Bravos were very, very cheap in the market just a few years ago, but I wasn't looking to move up and didn't really go shopping.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[donkaye]

The Bravo is definitely under appreciated and, therefore, the bargain out in the marketplace.  Most buyers just don't get it--or care more about a couple gallons an hour than the benefits of the longer body and higher gross weight.  I recently flew with a student who had upgraded his Encore to almost the same avionics as I have.  After flying with me he commented that the Bravo had a much more "big airplane" feel.  It does, and it should.  After all, it has 50 more horsepower and a higher gross weight.  It rides turbulence better and goes faster.  After 26 years of ownership, I wouldn't trade mine for anything--just keep upgrading it with everything new that comes along.

In the final analysis, though, there is a Mooney for everybody.

[Rickymooneyflyer]

11 minutes ago, KSMooniac said:

Many Bravo engines will not run LOP 
 

Hmmm. Not sure that makes sense. I get the 50 to 60HP difference. Can anyone that owns a Bravo comment on LOP?

[Rickymooneyflyer]

3 minutes ago, donkaye said:

The Bravo is definitely under appreciated and, therefore, the bargain out in the marketplace.  

What is your opinion on that its more difficult to fly than a 252?

[donkaye]

2 minutes ago, Rickymooneyflyer said:

What is your opinion on that its more difficult to fly than a 252?

In training many people with newly purchased Bravos, I only had one person who had difficulty with the transition from an M20K..

[Danb]

Brian my useful load is 1040# many Mooney folks are misled in that Bravo's have no useful load..

[Davidv]

Agreed, mine is about the same UL.

[donkaye]

49 minutes ago, Rickymooneyflyer said:

Hmmm. Not sure that makes sense. I get the 50 to 60HP difference. Can anyone that owns a Bravo comment on LOP?

I have a student who flys his LOP.  My GAMI spread is good enough for LOP flying, but Shirley doesn't like the way the engine sounds nor do I.  It feels like it is always on the edge of missing.  That means that it probably could be even better balanced.  Also, I think the weakest part of the engine system is the exhaust system.  Although LOP is supposed be better on the engine, when I was running mine LOP, I had enough exhaust repairs to negate the benefit of running LOP.  Could that be attributed to LOP ops?  Maybe.  Running ROP, that didn't seem to occur.  I have a new engine now, and will continue to run it ROP.

[Danb]

Don stated it quite nicely regarding the Bravo is under appreciated moreover misunderstood, an  item like minimal useful load ie. mine is 1040# it does like fuel, but, I can dial it back to J or K speeds and get fairly good efficiency eg 150 knots per hour on 12-12.5 gah not as good as a J but reasonable, fly at 200+ in the lower teens, long body comfort lacks a balloon. I like all Mooney's but own one as mentioned misunderstood, under appreciated and misquoted.

[donkaye]

13 minutes ago, Danb said:

Brian my useful load is 1040# many Mooney folks are misled in that Bravo's have no useful load..

Without TKS and/or air conditioning the Bravo is a 2 person, full fuel, full baggage airplane; a 3 person, 60 gallon full baggage, airplane; or a 4 person, 50 gallon, 40 pounds of baggage airplane.

[Danb]

2 minutes ago, donkaye said:

Without TKS and/or air conditioning the Bravo is a 2 person, full fuel, full baggage airplane; a 3 person, 60 gallon full baggage, airplane; or a 4 person, 50 gallon, 40 pounds of baggage airplane.

You can also put in 120+ gal  my wife and I can fly until our bladders bust, an extremely versatile airplane. Don I don't even need a backseat, I consider all Mooneys two place airplanes with the capacity to fly 3-4 people under the right conditions ie. not one of Marauder's lovelies

[Davidv]

Or 5 hours like I’ve done with my little John

[Bryan]

23 minutes ago, Danb said:

Brian my useful load is 1040# many Mooney folks are misled in that Bravo's have no useful load..

I am not trying to mis-lead anyone.  The OP asks why a 252 over a Bravo.  As Don states, his Bravo is a 2-person airplane, full baggage with full of fuel.  Mine is 3 person airplane with full fuel, full bags because I don't need as much fuel for the same mission. 

I have two kids that equate to another adult (single) so our 252 is perfect.  Yes, I don't need to carry full fuel but I do... because I can... because I don't like buying fuel at my destiation for $7/gal.  I'd rather fill my tanks at home for half that and when the line guy asks as my destination, do you need fuel.. I can say no.

I think Don hit it on the head:

51 minutes ago, donkaye said:

... there is a Mooney for everybody.

If money was no factor (aquisition or operating), I'd have a pressurized Mooney: TBM

 

[donkaye]

13 minutes ago, Danb said:

You can also put in 120+ gal  my wife and I can fly until our bladders bust, an extremely versatile airplane. Don I don't even need a backseat, I consider all Mooneys two place airplanes with the capacity to fly 3-4 people under the right conditions ie. not one of Marauder's lovelies

Exactly.  I have 2 weight and balances; one with the back seats and one without them.  I can't remember when I last had all the seats in.

[M20F]

13 minutes ago, Danb said:

I consider all Mooneys two place airplanes with the capacity to fly 3-4 people under the right conditions ie. not one of Marauder's lovelies

That I would disagree on that part.

I can get 4x175 people, 100lbs of baggage, and 40 gallons which is easily 500 NM range.