My wife thinks we need a 252...

[ragedracer1977]

3 hours ago, Niko182 said:

If useful load is what you're after, you need an Encore or an Eagle. The eagle is better below like 12k. From 12 to 18K, they're practically the same plane. and further up the Encore gets ahead. With the eagle you have a way better climb at the beginning, and up until about 7 or 8k where it evens out and then the Encore starts to catch up. Engine on overhaul on the 360 would probably be slightly more because of the turbo. Fuel flow are also probably gonna be the same. Takeoff GPH is 28.5 on the Eagle, and probably 26.5 on the encore. All in, They probably cost exactly the same to operate per hour and both will fit your entire family without issue as long as you're 4 people. I can take 750 lbs of stuff and 75 gallons giving me +4.5 hours of flight time plus the .5 hour reserve. I'm sure anthony will chime in, saying 310hp is addictive, but then again he isn't wrong.

The useful listed in the Ad is 854 lbs.  Maybe they're misinterpreting and giving the payload with full fuel?

[MIm20c]

2 minutes ago, ragedracer1977 said:

The useful listed in the Ad is 854 lbs.  Maybe they're misinterpreting and giving the payload with full fuel?

The 850 ish for a 252 is about right. An eagle or ovation w/o tks or ac is normally in the 1050-1150 range. A converted encore 252 is in the 1100 plus area but the 1998 vintage birds are well below that. 

[aviatoreb]

I think your wife is right.  

[gsxrpilot]

You're correct about the UL. It's terrible. One of the reasons for me buying a 252 over a 231 was the ability to do the Encore conversion and increase the UL. The increase is 230 lbs which is significant. I figured that plus a panel clean up, vacuum removal, removing the heavy power supplies for the lights, etc. and I might get to a respectable UL.

 

 

[KLRDMD]

4 hours ago, Niko182 said:

whats cruise on that thing? fuel flow and KTAS?

Since the OP does not fly LOP and I do, I'll add my numbers. I have an S35 Bonanza, not the same as an F33A but pretty close. The S35 is probably a little faster on the same fuel (same engine).

Depending on density altitude and weight I get 166-172 KTAS at 8,500 ft on 12.5 GPH (65% power), LOP.  If I want to fly ROP at 15-16 GPH I will get 178-180 KTAS but I don't ever cruise ROP.  I also have over 1,100 lb useful load and a very favorable empty CG. You must look at the empty CG of any 33/35 series Bonanza.

[donkaye]

6 hours ago, Ibra said:

The book seems to say 1170lbs for the Bravo, so just slightly above the Encore (reliable numbers come after we subtract 800nm fuel, oxygen, Aircon or FIKI (but not both ) )

In my 28 years of Bravo Ownership and teaching in many of them, I've never seen a Bravo with over 1,000 lb useful load.  Even mine with no TKS or air-conditioning and light weight upgraded avionics panel has a useful load of 988 lb.   If there is one out there with over 1,000 lb UL, then someone made a mistake and the plane should be re-weighed.

Having said that and having flown or taught in every model Mooney extensively except the D and G, the Bravo is the one for me.

[PJClark]

FWIW. For some reason I do not understand, 231 Rocket conversions all seem to have ULs above 1000# and I even saw two this winter for sale that were over 1100#. Meawhile my 252 Rocket was around 850 UL before my avionics mods and around 920 after.  But also meanwile:  Jimmy at All American had another 86 252 Rocket for sale at the same time he had mine--and that one had a UL of 960! Same year out of the factory, same conversion, pretty much the same equipment,  110# different. How can that even be true???

So the point is: if you're looking for a turbo Mooney with a UL over 1000# your best bet just might be a 231 Rocket conversion.  Even if all these numbers are highly suspect, which is pretty much what I've decided, the highest UL I've seen that would be a "legal" number on a turbo Mooney is on 231 Rockets.

[Guest]

It’s one of the realities of Mooney airframes, they’re over built and weigh too much.  This limits their useful load when compared to other similar airframes.  My 56 year old Comanche will carry 780 pounds of fuel and 3 adults and their gear.

Clarence

[Mooney217RN]

The 252 is a fantastic bird.  My hangar neighbor has an Encore.  Beautiful plane.

That said, the Encore's are overpriced.  Step up to an Ovation, you'll never regret that decision.

[louisut]

2 hours ago, PJClark said:

FWIW. For some reason I do not understand, 231 Rocket conversions all seem to have ULs above 1000# and I even saw two this winter for sale that were over 1100#. Meawhile my 252 Rocket was around 850 UL before my avionics mods and around 920 after.  But also meanwile:  Jimmy at All American had another 86 252 Rocket for sale at the same time he had mine--and that one had a UL of 960! Same year out of the factory, same conversion, pretty much the same equipment,  110# different. How can that even be true???

So the point is: if you're looking for a turbo Mooney with a UL over 1000# your best bet just might be a 231 Rocket conversion.  Even if all these numbers are highly suspect, which is pretty much what I've decided, the highest UL I've seen that would be a "legal" number on a turbo Mooney is on 231 Rockets.

81 231 Rocket here with a UL of 854 lbs. Just curious, how did you go about saving weight? I'm also perplexed by some of the higher ULs I've seen for other Rockets. The big one I can think of is with the four-blade composite prop; I think it's supposed to save around 35 lbs plus shift CG back.

We're planning to re-weigh at our next manual and I'm hoping it doesn't go down further.

Edited April 29, 2020 by louisut

[Niko182]

33 minutes ago, louisut said:

81 231 Rocket here with a UL of 854 lbs. Just curious, how did you go about saving weight? I'm also perplexed by some of the higher ULs I've seen for other Rockets. The big one I can think of is with the four-blade composite prop; I think it's supposed to save around 35 lbs plus shift CG back.

We're planning to re-weigh at our next manual and I'm hoping it doesn't go down further.

Composite prop, vacuum and standby vacuum pump. Strobe power supplies. Lighter altornators. Lighter starters. Cleaning up the wiring gets rid of a ton of weight. All of that stuff adds up. 

[PJClark]

1 hour ago, louisut said:

We're planning to re-weigh at our next manual and I'm hoping it doesn't go down further.

I would NOT re-weigh!  I've been warned by Jimmy G, DMax, and at least two local A&Ps that "I've never weighed an airplane and made the customer happy".  Unless you have a "tame" weigh-er and you know that in advance..in which case let me know who it is after you get the answer you're hoping for!

I lost almost 70 lbs between avionics upgrades and interior. Lost just 4.5 lbs on interior (seats) by AeroComfort--everything they use now is lighter than in the 80s believe it or not.

But avionics is the big thing.  KFC200 system, all in, is 37 lbs removed all by itself. Stdy Vac around 9 lbs, a bunch of 3-pounders in there, a couple more 8-10 punders, and there you are. I kept the engine driven vac pump for my speedbrakes. About 90 lbs came out. Total of about 30 lbs went back in for G3X, GTN750, G5, EDM900 primary, GTN750 and GFC500.

[gsxrpilot]

5 minutes ago, PJClark said:

I would NOT re-weigh!  I've been warned by Jimmy G, DMax, and at least two local A&Ps that "I've never weighed an airplane and made the customer happy".  Unless you have a "tame" weigh-er and you know that in advance..in which case let me know who it is after you get the answer you're hoping for!

I lost almost 70 lbs between avionics upgrades and interior. Lost just 4.5 lbs on interior (seats) by AeroComfort--everything they use now is lighter than in the 80s believe it or not.

But avionics is the big thing.  KFC200 system, all in, is 37 lbs removed all by itself. Stdy Vac around 9 lbs, a bunch of 3-pounders in there, a couple more 8-10 punders, and there you are. I kept the engine driven vac pump for my speedbrakes. About 90 lbs came out. Total of about 30 lbs went back in for G3X, GTN750, G5, EDM900 primary, GTN750 and GFC500.

Re-weigh all you like, just don't put it in the log book unless it's in your favor.

[LANCECASPER]

On the Encore I had the useful load was just over 900 lbs.

 

 

On the Bravo I have, the useful load was 974 when I bought it. After two phases of upgrades the useful load is now 1012. When I replace the WX-1000 stormscope with the WX-500 and the factory gauges with the JPI-930 I'll gain a few more pounds of useful load.

 

[Tim Jodice]

Not meant to be fresh and this is not directed to anyone but if some people don't care how much an airplane really weighs, why do they care about useful load?

[DonMuncy]

15 minutes ago, airtim said:

Not meant to be fresh and this is not directed to anyone but if some people don't care how much an airplane really weighs, why do they care about useful load?

It is a game that pilots play. The regulations are specific about what weights are legal. So everyone adheres to them carefully. Your logs have a certain number, and even though it may be wrong, it is legal, so if you pretend it is accurate, everyone is happy. If you find you can make that legal number a little smaller, we can fly a little more stuff and still be legal. 

Everyone knows (or should know) that airplanes will fly well over their legal weight, so the danger of having your legal number a little below the actual number, does not appreciably change the safety of your flight. But it does affect whether you could get in trouble with  the FAA. So we pretend. But we don't talk about the pretense. 

I don't know who got on my computer and posted this. I definitely did not do it.

[SantosDumont]

Oh man A36. I'd do it if I wasn't exhausted by certificated planes.  Then build a RV-8 for zooms.

[cferr59]

3 hours ago, PJClark said:

I would NOT re-weigh!  I've been warned by Jimmy G, DMax, and at least two local A&Ps that "I've never weighed an airplane and made the customer happy".  Unless you have a "tame" weigh-er and you know that in advance..in which case let me know who it is after you get the answer you're hoping for!

I lost almost 70 lbs between avionics upgrades and interior. Lost just 4.5 lbs on interior (seats) by AeroComfort--everything they use now is lighter than in the 80s believe it or not.

But avionics is the big thing.  KFC200 system, all in, is 37 lbs removed all by itself. Stdy Vac around 9 lbs, a bunch of 3-pounders in there, a couple more 8-10 punders, and there you are. I kept the engine driven vac pump for my speedbrakes. About 90 lbs came out. Total of about 30 lbs went back in for G3X, GTN750, G5, EDM900 primary, GTN750 and GFC500.

I agree.  Previous owner reweighed my plane and it gained 50 lbs.  I don't know what it was eating...

[carusoam]

We have a few lessons of value around here...

1) The Eagle was born with the best UL for all Mooneys... over 1,100...

2) The Screamin’ Eagle... has the best power to weight ratio....

3) Find their pilots.... they always eat properly, go to the gym often... and looks really healthy...   like F1 pilots... (formula one race car drivers)

4) Finding the picture of the fifth passenger in the baggage area of an M20C... for the opposite end of the spectrum... the pic was the before flight pic...

5) For long bodies... it is possible to overload them as well... the first O accident of record was a Ferry flight with extra fuel.  The forced landing ran into some heavy duty agricultural equipment... tragically cutting the cabin roof off...

6) weigh, don’t weigh... but always know what you are doing...
 

7) It’s like  knowing what the DA is... not always critical, until it’s critical...

8) Flying an Eagle... is so simple compared to managing a 252...   

9) If you are a modern day sailor... and like finding really strong tail winds at altitude... and don’t mind O2 systems...

Go TC’d Mooney!

PP thoughts only, not a CFI...

Best regards,

-a-

[MIm20c]

27 minutes ago, SantosDumont said:

Oh man A36. I'd do it if I wasn't exhausted by certificated planes.  Then build a RV-8 for zooms.

Currently on the hunt for a rv7 or rv8. Found a partner who has built one before, now just to locate the perfect plane/partially finished kit. 

[SantosDumont]

Just now, MIm20c said:

Currently on the hunt for a rv7 or rv8. Found a partner who has built one before, now just to locate the perfect plane/partially finished kit. 

I'm building a -14 right now.  Once I'm done I'll probably pull the trigger on the -8 kit, maybe even the QB kit.  I just wanted to build a complete airplane first so I could figure out what I'm supposed to be doing.

[kortopates]

3 hours ago, carusoam said:

We have a few lessons of value around here...

1) A Turbo 252/Encore conversion has the best UL 's of all Mooneys... over 1,100..., In the longbody's, the NA Eagle is comes in almost as high but with less equipment

2) The Screamin’ Eagle... has the best power to weight ratio.... but is not as fast as the 252/Encore's up high

3) Find their pilots.... they always eat properly, go to the gym often... and looks really healthy...   like F1 pilots... (formula one race car drivers)

4) Finding the picture of the fifth passenger in the baggage area of an M20C... for the opposite end of the spectrum... the pic was the before flight pic...

5) For any Mooney... it is possible to overload them all... the first O accident of record was a Ferry flight with extra fuel.  The forced landing ran into some heavy duty agricultural equipment... tragically cutting the cabin roof off... (there are actually numerous Mooney accidents that were found to be over weight but over weight isn't the principal cause)

6) weigh, don’t weigh... but always know what you are doing...especially when your pushing near the envelope edge, but never ever push beyond the CG limits since penalties can be severe.

7) It’s like  knowing what the DA is... not always critical, until it’s critical...

8) Flying a Turbo 252/Encore ... is so simple, just as easy as flying a NA engine ...   

9) Once you taste the fast speeds of the light levels and flying VMC above the weather below you with no tail wind necessary to reduce block time, you'll never go back to flying a NA aircraft; add in a sweet tailwind and the smile only grows cruising at over 200 kts on about 10 GPH.  

Go TC’d Mooney!

My opinion only...

Best regards,

Anthony, just had to make a few corrections to your summary above to set the record straight  I know you're dreaming of a Turbo some day!!

[carusoam]

Paul,(s)

I have dreams... turbo, turbine... a pair of snails on my TN’d IO550...

There isn’t enough room in that one allotted place for all the times I hit the  button...

One day...

 

I tried to get Acclaim power for my O... back when I had the engine Reman’d...

Ran into a small paperwork challenge....

Somebody used a three letter supplemental type C-word with me...   (STC) 

I was doing a complete firewall forward project, including cowl changes.... 

Something just hit me... and it made sense...

Unfortunately,   That something didn’t hit anybody else... as it doesn’t make sense to anyone at the FAA...

Firewall backwards, the O and Acclaim are extremely similar...  perfectly similar even...
 

All I wanted to do was mount the acclaim’s nose on my O...

Minor surgery... really.  The whole nose comes in a box, twin snails, pipes and all... bolts on a different frame... covered in different carbon fiber... on any other machine... this would be a bolt on mod...

Just need a few pieces of paper to come with that...

I even did some additional TT to go with it at the time...  @Cris lent me his knowledge about getting the 310hp engine in place and oversaw the break-in flights as well...

Flying in the FLs... that would be more TT... for practical safety... and safety of the engine...

Picture me in a 310hp Acclaim running full power with about 30gph keeping TIT and CHTs in control... I’m coming to both of you to help me keep things cool and properly oxygenated...  (I promise...I will need the help.)

Oops... that’s enough about my dreams...

Where is Brice?

Best regards,

-a-

[kortopates]

Anthony, thanks for sharing that story - I had no idea! Never really thought about converting an O to a Acclaim. Although it's got to be cheaper to do so by selling the O and buying the Acclaim, I would still think an STC would not be necessary if you one could ensure the conversion was 100% compliant with the Acclaim - but that's going to a lot of expensive parts adding up including some cockpit instrumentation (i.e. not 100% firewall forward only but probably darn close).

[carusoam]

ooooh wait there’s more...
 

The project (engine, mount, prop,...)  was already in the 60+amu bracket..... the snails and pipes were just(?) another 20amu (?)...

Thus proving how gratifying and expensive this hobby can be...

Fortunately, without the STC being readily available... The torturous financial decisions didn’t get any worse... 

Time wise... a new engine can be finished and sent for install, delivered in two weeks... building a new prop... two months... getting the MT four blade... another STC challenge at the time... was four months away... in real time. Not typical STC time...

Easier to buy an Acclaim ready to fly... yes.

I have the O1 vintage Ovation... moving up to the Acclaim is a change in vintage as well...

So... imagine getting Acclaim performance from an O1... for the basic price of Adding a pair of snails and piping.... and a swap of one cowl for another with bigger nostrils... this would net a big financial victory for the owner...

The acclaim’s cowl was on display at AirVenture last year... the carbon fiber parts are sooooo light... I got to pick it up... cause I asked...

When doing weight and balance calculations... a few pounds out front gets a bit sensitive... and may end up with more lead in the tail.... The CF cowl really makes sense in this case... as would the MT...

Fun project for machine oriented people...

Best regards,

-a-