252 versus Bravo versus ...

[Pinecone]

I have been looking at getting a 252.  They tend to be scarce.

So, seeing some Bravos. 

Which one and why one over the other?

Also, may have a line on a 252 Rocket.  Comments?

Thanks

[Danb]

The Bravo is a long body Acclaim, Bravo and Ovation.

The 252 is a mid body with the Encore being the flagship, while the Rocket is a mid body with the enhancement of a large powerful 6 cylinder engine.

[irishpilot]

Encores are rarer than a hen's tooth. At least when I was in the market for a turbo Mooney. For the money, the Bravo has a great valuation.

First, ask yourself if a turbo is desired or required. If it is desired, the Ovation and Bravo are sister planes with different powerplants and both are great. The Acclaim is a step up in performance, engine complexity, and cost (purchase, mx, and insurance).

I've never heard an Encore owner complain about their bird. They're very efficient.

I hope this helps.

Sent from my motorola one 5G ace using Tapatalk

[LANCECASPER]

2 hours ago, Pinecone said:

I have been looking at getting a 252.  They tend to be scarce.

So, seeing some Bravos. 

Which one and why one over the other?

Also, may have a line on a 252 Rocket.  Comments?

Thanks

Starting in 1986 -1990 they made two hundred and thirty one 252s. Some of those were converted to Rockets, some have been wrecked. There are probably less than 200 unconverted 252s in the wild. In 1997 -98 they re-introduced the 252 setup with the Encore (I had serial number 12 in 2014). They made 36 of those, less than a handful were converted to Rockets. People with the 252 or Encore tend to hang on to them. Many people feel that the 201 and the 252 were the peak of efficiency in Mooneys.

M20Ms started in 1989 - 2005 and there were about 355 of them. The M20M was called the TLS (Turbo Lycoming Sabre) from 1989-mid 2006. Serial number 209 was the first Bravo off of the line. (I owned it from 1996-2000). Almost all TLS were converted to Bravo (Oil cooled wet-head engine TIO-540-AF1B, B for Bravo)) A few have been been wrecked and a couple of them and a couple of the Porsche Mooneys (M20L) were reportedly converted to Liquid Rockets with a LTSIO-550 liquid cooled Continental. It will be easier to find a Bravo than a 252 since there were more of them and they tend to change hands more often.

[carusoam]

Machines that were at the top of the line during their run…

Still greatly appreciated for their skills…

Some may be ready for panel updates….

Often they are so loaded with options…. Be mindful of their UL….

The Bravo is a step more modern….

If there is a UL increase in the future… the Bravo will be available to it….  The future remains less than clear for this….

Go Long Body!

Best regards,

-a-

[donkaye]

Let's look at it this way: The 252 has 210HP, the Encore 220HP and the Bravo 270HP. That says something.   However, from a fuel burn point of view, the 252 and Encore are more efficient.  I like them both.

But, meaning no disrespect for all other model Mooneys, the only Mooney I want, having flown and taught extensively in nearly every model in my over 10,200 hours of Mooney time, is the Bravo, and that includes the Acclaims.  I love the G1000---on other people's airplanes.  I like the flexibility of avionics upgrades on the non-G1000 airplanes.  When all tradeoffs are considered, from my point of view, the Bravo is the best value out there right now.

[Greg Ellis]

Just for grins I went over to controller.com  There are a few nice Bravos listed, a few K models of various types (231, 252) and one Encore which is at Don Maxwell's right now although the interior color is not my cup of tea.  Then, of course, there are a few J models, there is the over priced F model for $97,500, the overpriced E model for, wait for it... $149,500 and the one that made me fall out of my chair... the C model for $115,000.

[carusoam]

The nice thing about the Bravo….  It’s base model is extremely capable…. It is technically the third version of the Long Body….

The M20Ks take a lot more effort to comb through all of the details to know what you want, then find the one that meets your expectations….

Use caution if you find an M20M TLS…. This is the M20M prior to becoming the Bravo…. Look for the reference that it got the upgrade for wet heads, oil cooled cylinder heads…

By the time Mooney got to the third version…

• the airframe was all worked out
• the engine was all worked out
• the cabin was all worked out
• the instrument panel was all worked out

If you really like instrument panels…. Follow Don’s lead…. There is no easy way to update a little at a time…. 

 

PP thoughts only, not a plane sales guy…

Best regards,

-a-

[Niko182]

2 minutes ago, carusoam said:

It is technically the third version of the Long Body….

I thought the bravo/tls came before the O?

[carusoam]

8 minutes ago, Niko182 said:

I thought the bravo/tls came before the O?

1) M20L… first Long Body.  Porsche Powered, leg strength limited….

2) M20M TLS… second LB…. CHT limited….

3) M20M Bravo…. A real pilot’s plane….   

4) M20R Ovation 1….  Was LB #4… perfect for cruising with the family…. 

 

Best regards,

-a-

[LANCECASPER]

14 hours ago, Greg Ellis said:

Just for grins I went over to controller.com  There are a few nice Bravos listed, a few K models of various types (231, 252) and one Encore which is at Don Maxwell's right now although the interior color is not my cup of tea.  Then, of course, there are a few J models, there is the over priced F model for $97,500, the overpriced E model for, wait for it... $149,500 and the one that made me fall out of my chair... the C model for $115,000.

What they are calling an Encore in that ad is a stretch, its a nice 1986 252 but not an Encore. Encores start at serial number 25-2001 and go through 25-2036.  The one in the ad (serial number 25-1058) has the useful load upgrade which came out on the Encore, also an -SB upgrade (10hp) to the engine/governor. There were a lot of other improvements that only factory Encores (1997-98) had like the much more well-laid-out instrument panel, the ultra-leather covered fiberglass panels that make up the interior (rather than the old yellowing Royalite)  just like all other Mooneys since 1994 have had, better insulation, evolutionary airframe improvements, etc, etc.

[geoffb]

TLS/Bravo are Lycoming powered.  Faster than any K models (excluding Rocket conversions).  Easier to find than 252s.  Lot's to like. 

[Pinecone]

8 hours ago, Greg Ellis said:

Just for grins I went over to controller.com  There are a few nice Bravos listed, a few K models of various types (231, 252) and one Encore which is at Don Maxwell's right now although the interior color is not my cup of tea.  Then, of course, there are a few J models, there is the over priced F model for $97,500, the overpriced E model for, wait for it... $149,500 and the one that made me fall out of my chair... the C model for $115,000.

I think that Encore is not an actual Encore.  It is a 252 converted to Encore.  The 252 has a wreck of an engine, and is getting Jewell overhaul, when it probably needs a factory.

But a couple of Bravos look nice.

Looking for real word number for speed and fuel burn in 252 versus Bravo versus Rocket.

[irishpilot]

18.5-19.5 gph for the Bravo. FIKI costs about 5 kts or so. My previous FIKI Bravo would true out at 195 at FL210, and I planned for 190 in the high teens. Non-FIKI will do over 200 kts. A few Bravo owners can get their birds to run LOP, but the induction system isn't well-suited like the IO-550 is (think Ovation). The big issue I had with my Bravo was the POH is worthless for engine parameters as they published insane power settings to get their marketing speeds high. The POH has 34" MP/2400 rpm as a cruise setting and it is a great way to go through cylinders. A good Bravo instructor is a must when you get your transition training. Useful load is the limiting factor with Bravos. 850-950# depending on configuration. 

[Danb]

Totally AGREE Mr Kaye

[Z W]

A 252 will do about 165-185 knots at the altitudes you will fly it regularly, which are from 9k-17k feet.  Fuel burn about 12.5 GPH, plus or minus one GPH based on your power settings.  The higher you go, the faster you are.  You can go faster in the flight levels but oxygen requirements and time of useful consciousness keep most below there.  And headwinds, somehow more than half the time.

I suspect someone will be along shortly to post better numbers, but the above is my experience.

If I were shopping today I'd look hard at the Bravos.  I would like the extra room of the long body and the extra power for heavily-loaded takeoffs.  They burn a little more fuel, but go a little faster.  Lots to like in both airframes.  I would say buying the best particular plane you can find, at the right price with the right features, would be more important than choosing one model over the other.

[Fly Boomer]

20 hours ago, Pinecone said:

Which one and why one over the other?

As @donkaye said:  "The 252 has 210HP, the Encore 220HP and the Bravo 270HP".  I would add the Rocket at 305 hp -- almost 100 hp upgrade from the already very fast 252.  Also, if it matters to you, 252s (including Rockets) have Continental engines, while Bravos have Lycoming.

[Shadrach]

I think an Encore will carry more weight in the cabin, a longer distance at a block speed that is around 20-25 kts less than a Bravo.

Using round numbers I’d estimate about 30 mins difference on a 600nm flight.

@kortopates should be able to ring in with real world Encore numbers.

[geoffb]

My deiced 262 conversion is good for 160-165 kts at 15,000, 65% power, 11.5 gph, ROP.  That puts my leanest about 60F rich of peak.  Runs plenty cool at those settings.  TIT right at 1500.  CHTs vary on depending on the outside conditions.  Will trail the cowl flap a little on a warm day.

TKS, dual alternators, standby vacuum pump, radar altimeter, a DME all eat into useful load.  Mine's about 750 lbs.  I can't legally top off the long range tanks if I'm flying.  Both the plane and I need to lose weight.

[hubcap]

For comparison -

My M20K gives 170-175kts on 10 gallons/hour in the mid to upper teens. On my last trip that I checked the numbers on, the flight was 5.3 hrs. When we topped off it only took 49.3 gallons, so even including the climb we used less than 10gal/hr running LOP. My useful load is 970 lbs, so we can fly with 2 adults, 2 back packs, and full fuel but that is max.

I do not have de-ice, dual alternators or a vacuum system in my aircraft.

Edited June 3, 2022 by hubcap

[M20F]

Irishpilot gives to me the first question every potential buyer needs to answer first.  Do you need a turbo. 
 
In terms of overall cost to buy, operating cost, efficiency, etc. nothing really beats a J (or a E If you don’t need the room).  Turbos offer very little if you aren’t hitting the high altitudes and doing the long trips. 
 
PS I exclude Ovations because to me the added cost really doesn’t bring much over a E/J. 
 

PPS Like all things just an opinion 

[PilotX]

On 6/1/2022 at 10:21 PM, irishpilot said:

18.5-19.5 gph for the Bravo. FIKI costs about 5 kts or so. My previous FIKI Bravo would true out at 195 at FL210, and I planned for 190 in the high teens. Non-FIKI will do over 200 kts. A few Bravo owners can get their birds to run LOP, but the induction system isn't well-suited like the IO-550 is (think Ovation). The big issue I had with my Bravo was the POH is worthless for engine parameters as they published insane power settings to get their marketing speeds high. The POH has 34" MP/2400 rpm as a cruise setting and it is a great way to go through cylinders. A good Bravo instructor is a must when you get your transition training. Useful load is the limiting factor with Bravos. 850-950# depending on configuration. 

I can do 170 TAS at 14.5gph at 12,500 LOP or 200 TAS at 19.5gph ROP - CHTs over 400. I need to get my oxygen leak fixed so I can take it up to the flight levels. 

[Will.iam]

On 6/4/2022 at 10:03 AM, M20F said:

Irishpilot gives to me the first question every potential buyer needs to answer first.  Do you need a turbo. 
 
In terms of overall cost to buy, operating cost, efficiency, etc. nothing really beats a J (or a E If you don’t need the room).  Turbos offer very little if you aren’t hitting the high altitudes and doing the long trips. 
 
PS I exclude Ovations because to me the added cost really doesn’t bring much over a E/J. 
 

PPS Like all things just an opinion 

I’ll counter that opinion with mine. When i was searching for a mooney, I initially wanted a J model just like my dad had. But as i looked at the market in 2019 the J models were going for the price of a K model. Seemed like the scare of hot running engine and having to do a top overhaul and turbo overhaul at halfway to TBO had deflated the once $20k premium a turbo model would fetch. After researching that non turbos have to overhaul their exhaust at about the same price point help ease the cost of owning a turbo and keep the heat managed will extend the top overhaul the ding for having a turbo is not as big a spread as being portrayed. Bottom line is more power more wear on an engine. A NA engine power is decreasing every foot it climbs to the point of by flying higher than 7500 or so you can’t get more than 65% so the engine life is getting extended where as the turbo engine at that same 7500 can still operate the engine at higher setting up to 100% power but will be wearing the engine out that much faster.  Owning a turbo takes discipline to not be tempted to extract higher power if you want the same longevity as a NA engine you have to operate the turbo at the same power as the NA. Sort of like when you get a raise in salary it takes discipline to just take all the extra money and put it into savings. You already have been surviving on the old salary. But instead the majority just start spending more. It’s nice to have the option to go faster or run the engine harder just as long as you know you are wearing the engine out sooner. 
What I didn’t realize as a bonus was how much easier it is to operate a turbo that has a fully controlled wastegate like the MB engine has on the 252. Pilot workload in engine management is greatly reduced. While the NA pilot has to continentally lean as they climb to altitude i do not because the turbo maintains a constant 36” of pressure. When descending a NA engine you have to keep richening up as you descend or face leaning out the engine to the point of the engine quitting if you were very high when you started. Mine i just start descending at 300ft per min and let the speed build up I don’t touch a thing! I was 25”mp burning 9.5 LOP at cruise altitude I’ll be 25”mp burning 9.5 at pattern altitude. Only when i need to slow for landing do i pull the power back.  

[N9405V]

Look at the overhaul costs between a 252/Encore and a Bravo. That might help with the decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LANCECASPER]

25 minutes ago, N9405V said:

Look at the overhaul costs between a 252/Encore and a Bravo. That might help with the decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The common misconception is that the Bravo engine is a lot more money than the 252/Encore. However they are both 6 cylinder turbo charged engines.

Here's what the 252/Encore engine costs: https://www.airpowerinc.com/tsio-360-sb   roughly $77,000

Here's what an overhauled Lycoming engine runs for the Bravo: https://www.airpowerinc.com/henpl-9906  roughly $78,600

Since the Bravo is 10-20% faster than the 252, depending on how you fly it, this means that you'll put less hours on the engine on every trip than you will on the 252. Also the cylinders are more likely to last to overhaul on the Lycoming, so if you are buying a factory engine, over a 2000 hour period,  the Bravo engine is considerably less money. Bottom line, they are both expensive.

Doing a field overhaul on either engine is likely to be considerably less, probably in the $40,000-$50,000 range if done right with new cylinders, etc, etc, etc.