M20K 252 with full fuel - no useful load?

[HelicopterGuy]

Hello everyone. Nice to join the group. I've been dreaming about owning a Mooney since the start of my helicopter career but finally getting around to looking and educating myself a bit more. I've learnt a lot from this forum! Thanks.

I can across a nice 252 but something doesn't make sense to me. It has the Monroe tanks install for a total 105.6 USG. Based on the attached W & B, if I go full fuel I have a useful load of 101.1 lbs. If that's true then why would someone install those tanks, they can never be used?

Edited May 25, 2020 by HelicopterGuy

[KLRDMD]

And that is why I no longer have a Mooney and have a Bonanza. My 231 had under 900 lb useful load, my Bonanza has 250 lb more.

713 is ridiculous, but not unheard of. 

[HelicopterGuy]

Just now, KLRDMD said:

And that is why I no longer have a Mooney and have a Bonanza. My 231 had under 900 lb useful load, my Bonanza has 250 lb more.

713 is ridiculous, but not unheard of. 

I get that and maybe I'll have to do more research on Bonanza as well ;-) I still can't understand the logic of installing tanks that you can't even use.

[carusoam]

Welcome aboard HG.

First off... what helicopter do you fly? (We have a few helicopter guys around here...) 

 

You are going to find some oddities of why an owner has added one piece of equipment or another...

In the aviation world there are people that have some financial strength that allows them to do things that don’t make sense for most people’s wallets...
 

There are 100# people that like to fly with full tanks...

There are people that like to fly really long distances and know how to file ferry permits...

Ferry tanks have their short-comings... so having your regular tanks extended to 100gal really makes technical sense...
 

Congrats on doing your research...   much better to find this stuff out prior to getting cornered...

Flying outside the approved envelope is not an ordinary thing for Mooney owners...

Somewhere around here is a picture of a happy person sitting in the baggage compartment before the shorter than expected flight...

Our envelope is quite large And well defined compared to some planes...

Some days... the OAT makes these flights easily doable, other days... the DA makes your fifth passenger, riding in the back, not like you very much anymore...
 

There is a bright spot in all of this... a typical 80s fully loaded Mooney has about 50-100# of old stuff that can be removed... and replaced with some really light weight stuff....

While doing the research on an individual plane... expect that the WnB portion of the POH to hold the keys.... 
 

Some Mooneys have 130gallon tanks... all for the same reason.

Go Mooney!

Welcome to the club...

Best regards,

-a-

[Ibra]

44 minutes ago, HelicopterGuy said:

I still can't understand the logic of installing tanks that you can't even use.

The only user cases I have in mind is 1/ flying to places where Avgas is 20$/Gal and back without refuelling (more a problem in southern Europe or Caribbean tour) and 2/ ferry flights over Oceans without auxiliary tanks? other than theses cases you may argue why having more than 6 hours endurance in any GA aircraft? maybe to be able to fuel it once a month or two months 

Edited May 25, 2020 by Ibra

[PJClark]

It looks like it has TKS installed?

My bet is one owner had the tanks installed and still had at least 70 lb more UL, so the tanks could make sense for one person.  Next owner put 8n TKS and never planned to use those tanks.

Maybe.

What I've seen (I think, small sample size): 231s seem to have much better UL than 252s. The 252 did come with a better turbo, auto wastegate, and intercooler, but how that ends up 200 -250 lbs more than a 231 I can't  understand.  I kinda suspect (a suspicion quietly hinted at by a famous Mooney person) that the factory may have once upon a time weighed before painting and not recorded it that way, but 252s logs I've looked at all seem to have a post paint weight entry.  Point is that if any of that is true, all the numbers are highly suspect. So on a given day there are 231 Rockets with 1100 lb UL while my 252 Rocket is barely 900. Clearly they'll all fly at the heavier weight...

[HelicopterGuy]

Just now, PJClark said:

It looks like it has TKS installed?

My bet is one owner had the tanks installed and still had at least 70 lb more UL, so the tanks could make sense for one person.  Next owner put 8n TKS and never planned to use those tanks.

Maybe.

What I've seen (I think, small sample size): 231s seem to have much better UL than 252s. The 252 did come with a better turbo, auto wastegate, and intercooler, but how that ends up 200 -250 lbs more than a 231 I can't  understand.  I kinda suspect (a suspicion quietly hinted at by a famous Mooney person) that the factory may have once upon a time weighed before painting and not recorded it that way, but 252s logs I've looked at all seem to have a post paint weight entry.  Point is that if any of that is true, all the numbers are highly suspect. So on a given day there are 231 Rockets with 1100 lb UL while my 252 Rocket is barely 900. Clearly they'll all fly at the heavier weight...

Yes, TKS installed. That makes sense. Thanks!

Interestingly, I have come across some 231s with wastegate and intercooler mods (with the LB engine) and wondered if there was much of an advantage of the 252 compared to a 231 with those mods and that engine.

 

[HelicopterGuy]

19 minutes ago, carusoam said:

Welcome aboard HG.

You are going to find some oddities of why an owner has added one piece of equipment or another...

In the aviation world there are people that have some financial strength that allows them to do things that don’t make sense for most people’s wallets...
 

There are 100# people that like to fly with full tanks...

There are people that like to fly really long distances and know how to file ferry permits...

Ferry tanks have their short-comings... so having your regular tanks extended to 100gal really makes technical sense...
 

Congrats on doing your research...   much better to find this stuff out prior to getting cornered...

Flying outside the approved envelope is not an ordinary thing for Mooney owners...

Somewhere around here is a picture of a happy person sitting in the baggage compartment before the short flight...

Our envelope is quite large And well defined compared to some planes...

Some days... the OAT makes these flights easily doable, other days... the DA makes your fifth passenger riding in the back not like you very much anymore...
 

There is a bright spot in all of this... a typical 80s fully loaded Mooney has about 50-100# of old stuff that can be removed... and replaced with some really light weight stuff....

While doing the research on an individual plane... expect that the WnB portion of the POH to hold the keys.... 

Go Mooney!

Welcome to the club...

Best regards,

-a-

Thanks for the detailed reply! That's very helpful and makes sense. It's been so much fun researching and learning about the different models and permutations of the Mooney family.

[ArtVandelay]

I still can't understand the logic of installing tanks that you can't LEGALLY use.

FIFY

[squeaky.stow]

4 hours ago, HelicopterGuy said:

Hello everyone. Nice to join the group. I've been dreaming about owning a Mooney since the start of my helicopter career but finally getting around to looking and educating myself a bit more. I've learnt a lot from this forum! Thanks.

I can across a nice 252 but something doesn't make sense to me. It has the Monroe tanks install for a total 105.6 USG. Based on the attached W & B, if I go full fuel I have a useful load of 101.1 lbs. If that's true then why would someone install those tanks, they can never be used?

The 252 in question is mine. The previous owner (now deceased) was one of these guys that couldn’t let a year go by without adding another mod or upgrade to his airplane. Some of the stuff he put in I just shake my head about. Others, I silently bless him for. Monroy tanks were added before the TKS, so at that time they would have been useful if you REALLY wanted to spend 10 hours in the air! I have never totally filled them for obvious reasons, but I did fill them as far as I could just once. That was after having the tanks re-sealed by WeepNoMore in Wilmar MN. I drained the TKS and removed the rear seats to do it and was able to board 95 gallons.   Normally I fly with 60 - 70 gallons on board because after 4-5 hours, I really want to get out and stretch. With the wife on board, her limit is 4 hours, which we can do comfortably with baggage and IFR reserves. (Neither of us are very big) The TKS and the two of just about everything avionics and instrument-wise? Now those are worth the weight to me. I have been kind of spoiled by the high levels of redundancy in the airplanes I flew for a living and I like to have backups that when I fly IFR. 
That being said, it is definitely not an airplane for loading a family of four into and going any great distance. My mission is normally about 600 miles with one or two people. For that, it shines at 170 knots @ 10 GPH.

I am planning to pull the listing soon as COVID19 has changed my retirement plans and I think I will hang on to it for a few more years. 
 

[gsxrpilot]

The 252's got loaded up with lot's of goodies. It's a strong platform, lot's of electrical power which allows for lots of gadgets, redundant alternators which allows for TKS or even FIKI. And so a lot of them are quite heavy with stuff. My 252 was similarly loaded down with two or three of everything in the panel. When I was looking at 252's to buy, I was figuring in my head, how much useful load I could get back by cleaning up the plane, panel, and doing the Encore conversion. With most Mooneys, the useful load is what it is. But the 252's have a lot of room to get back useful load. 

On another note, I surveyed quite a number of 252 owners before buying mine. Every owner I spoke with, all who shall remain nameless, said they flew their 252 at Encore weight prior to completing the upgrade. Rocket owners seem to fall into the same category.

And finally, while the 231 with an LB engine with waste gate and intercooler is much improved over the original 231 with the GB engine, they still aren't a 252. They can't be upgraded to the Encore with the UL increase that goes with it. They still have 14 volt electrical systems, aren't eligible for TKS, don't have the nice cowl flap, or the redesigned, better cooling cowl. They also don't have the 28,000 ft ceiling. And finally, you still have to manage the throttle so as not to over boost on takeoff or other times. Now are these things worth the premium asking price of 252's? Some of us think so, others disagree. I'll just say that when I used to own an M20C, I always wished it was an M20E. And so buying an M20K, I didn't want to take off in a 231 each time wishing it was a 252.

[Guest]

From my read of the W&B report, it was not done per the maintenance manual.  Incorrect methods often lead to inaccurate results.

Clarence

 

[HelicopterGuy]

3 hours ago, squeaky.stow said:

The 252 in question is mine. The previous owner (now deceased) was one of these guys that couldn’t let a year go by without adding another mod or upgrade to his airplane. Some of the stuff he put in I just shake my head about. Others, I silently bless him for. Monroy tanks were added before the TKS, so at that time they would have been useful if you REALLY wanted to spend 10 hours in the air! I have never totally filled them for obvious reasons, but I did fill them as far as I could just once. That was after having the tanks re-sealed by WeepNoMore in Wilmar MN. I drained the TKS and removed the rear seats to do it and was able to board 95 gallons.   Normally I fly with 60 - 70 gallons on board because after 4-5 hours, I really want to get out and stretch. With the wife on board, her limit is 4 hours, which we can do comfortably with baggage and IFR reserves. (Neither of us are very big) The TKS and the two of just about everything avionics and instrument-wise? Now those are worth the weight to me. I have been kind of spoiled by the high levels of redundancy in the airplanes I flew for a living and I like to have backups that when I fly IFR. 
That being said, it is definitely not an airplane for loading a family of four into and going any great distance. My mission is normally about 600 miles with one or two people. For that, it shines at 170 knots @ 10 GPH.

I am planning to pull the listing soon as COVID19 has changed my retirement plans and I think I will hang on to it for a few more years. 
 

Thanks for the info. I'm in the Mooney learning phase and it's been quite a journey so far. I appreciate your comments. I'm learning so much. Also, I'm stunned that she'll actually cruise at 170/10GPH. Mind-blowing!

Cheers!

[Niko182]

Usually weighing the plane with empty tanks and empty tks results in higher useful loads. Also pretty sure that plane accepts an encore upgrade increasing the useful load substancially.

[gsxrpilot]

12 minutes ago, HelicopterGuy said:

Also, I'm stunned that she'll actually cruise at 170/10GPH. Mind-blowing!

See, now you've gone and asked for it. How high do you want to fly? Because you can do better than that.  Up in the flight levels the 252's are very efficient.

 

 

 

[HelicopterGuy]

2 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

The 252's got loaded up with lot's of goodies. It's a strong platform, lot's of electrical power which allows for lots of gadgets, redundant alternators which allows for TKS or even FIKI. And so a lot of them are quite heavy with stuff. My 252 was similarly loaded down with two or three of everything in the panel. When I was looking at 252's to buy, I was figuring in my head, how much useful load I could get back by cleaning up the plane, panel, and doing the Encore conversion. With most Mooneys, the useful load is what it is. But the 252's have a lot of room to get back useful load. 

On another note, I surveyed quite a number of 252 owners before buying mine. Every owner I spoke with, all who shall remain nameless, said they flew their 252 at Encore weight prior to completing the upgrade. Rocket owners seem to fall into the same category.

And finally, while the 231 with an LB engine with waste gate and intercooler is much improved over the original 231 with the GB engine, they still aren't a 252. They can't be upgraded to the Encore with the UL increase that goes with it. They still have 14 volt electrical systems, aren't eligible for TKS, don't have the nice cowl flap, or the redesigned, better cooling cowl. They also don't have the 28,000 ft ceiling. And finally, you still have to manage the throttle so as not to over boost on takeoff or other times. Now are these things worth the premium asking price of 252's? Some of us think so, others disagree. I'll just say that when I used to own an M20C, I always wished it was an M20E. And so buying an M20K, I didn't want to take off in a 231 each time wishing it was a 252.

Thanks for those details. I now have a better understanding of the key differences. Encore upgrade?  hummm, it seems I have more studying to do..haha. Luckily seems to be a bunch of posts about it here. And down the rabbit hole I goooo. 

[aviatoreb]

26 minutes ago, HelicopterGuy said:

Thanks for the info. I'm in the Mooney learning phase and it's been quite a journey so far. I appreciate your comments. I'm learning so much. Also, I'm stunned that she'll actually cruise at 170/10GPH. Mind-blowing!

Cheers!

That particular plane seems heavier than some.  I have TKS and it is a very nice item depending on where you live.  Nonetheless a heavy item.  I have an 81' 231 converted rocket and it seems 231's were lighter before all the goodies started picking up weight.  Now its a different bird but anyway I have Monroy and also tks and Im at 926 useful SO I can easily fill those tanks and fly solo, or ... with a light friend.  Or with a heavy friend if I leave just a few gallons behind.  Or two friends if I leave a lot of gallons behind.  All rockets are fast and all have the same easy to manage tsio520nb.  BTW in a rocket at least, it seems the weight balanced is due to the strength of the landing gear since with all that engine it still jumps of the runway quickly and climbs homesick angel mode.

Now a 252 may be heavier but you may be eligible to convert to an encore (the last of the line) and you get something like 200+ extra lbs.

[aviatoreb]

3 hours ago, squeaky.stow said:

The 252 in question is mine. The previous owner (now deceased) was one of these guys that couldn’t let a year go by without adding another mod or upgrade to his airplane. Some of the stuff he put in I just shake my head about. Others, I silently bless him for. Monroy tanks were added before the TKS, so at that time they would have been useful if you REALLY wanted to spend 10 hours in the air! I have never totally filled them for obvious reasons, but I did fill them as far as I could just once. That was after having the tanks re-sealed by WeepNoMore in Wilmar MN. I drained the TKS and removed the rear seats to do it and was able to board 95 gallons.   Normally I fly with 60 - 70 gallons on board because after 4-5 hours, I really want to get out and stretch. With the wife on board, her limit is 4 hours, which we can do comfortably with baggage and IFR reserves. (Neither of us are very big) The TKS and the two of just about everything avionics and instrument-wise? Now those are worth the weight to me. I have been kind of spoiled by the high levels of redundancy in the airplanes I flew for a living and I like to have backups that when I fly IFR. 
That being said, it is definitely not an airplane for loading a family of four into and going any great distance. My mission is normally about 600 miles with one or two people. For that, it shines at 170 knots @ 10 GPH.

I am planning to pull the listing soon as COVID19 has changed my retirement plans and I think I will hang on to it for a few more years. 
 

Seems like a lovely plane!  Good for you for keeping it!  You are close - come by and visit sometime!

E

[milotron]

10 hours ago, PJClark said:

It looks like it has TKS installed?

My bet is one owner had the tanks installed and still had at least 70 lb more UL, so the tanks could make sense for one person.  Next owner put 8n TKS and never planned to use those tanks.

Maybe.

What I've seen (I think, small sample size): 231s seem to have much better UL than 252s. The 252 did come with a better turbo, auto wastegate, and intercooler, but how that ends up 200 -250 lbs more than a 231 I can't  understand.  I kinda suspect (a suspicion quietly hinted at by a famous Mooney person) that the factory may have once upon a time weighed before painting and not recorded it that way, but 252s logs I've looked at all seem to have a post paint weight entry.  Point is that if any of that is true, all the numbers are highly suspect. So on a given day there are 231 Rockets with 1100 lb UL while my 252 Rocket is barely 900. Clearly they'll all fly at the heavier weight...

I have the 262 upgrade which is the 252 MB engine in a 14V 231 airframe. Looking at the W and B after the mod, the engine change only added 28 pounds. The second alternator added another 13 pounds. I have TKS also and that added 32 pounds, without fluid.

[Cody Stallings]

On 5/25/2020 at 6:40 PM, gsxrpilot said:

Rocket owners seem to fall into the same category.

I agree Paul.

I would comment on that, however I can’t be sure who all is reading. So I will just sit over here in my little corner an keep all my “If you strap enough Horsepower to something” Comments all to myself...lol

[PJClark]

16 hours ago, Cody Stallings said:

So I will just sit over here in my little corner an keep all my “If you strap enough Horsepower to something” Comments all to myself...lol

I was reading.  Got a new smartwatch yesterday and found this cool customizable watch face

[eman1200]

On 5/25/2020 at 10:02 PM, gsxrpilot said:

See, now you've gone and asked for it. How high do you want to fly? Because you can do better than that.  Up in the flight levels the 252's are very efficient.

 

 

 

90' difference between the G5 and aspen?

[gsxrpilot]

Just now, eman1200 said:

90' difference between the G5 and aspen?

Yep and I still have the original steam gauge altimeter and it's even further off. So I have no idea what altitude I'm at. 

Since that picture I've updated the software on the G5 and updated the whole Aspen unit to the MAX. Now both of them are almost exactly the same for altitude. The other one is still off.

 

[231MJ]

a man with one altimeter can tell you what altitude he's at, a man with 3 altimeters has no idea

[gsxrpilot]

2 hours ago, 231MJ said:

a man with one altimeter can tell you what altitude he's at, a man with 3 altimeters has no idea

Truth!