Questions on M20K/252/Encore

[BrianNC]

Hi everyone. New here and this is my first post.

I'm just beginning to look a Mooneys and find out more about them, and the M20K/252/Encore is kind of confusing to me. Let me quote from a Plane and Pilot article from 2005:

"Speed is a mission in itself; in fact, speed is the essence of flying. The faster you go, the faster you go faster, or at least most of us want to. Terry Williams of Fort Worth, Texas, goes faster than the majority of us in his Mooney 252. The amazing thing is that the 252 TSE does it so frugally on 210 hp. A few other turbocharged airplanes can beat the Mooney’s 201-knot cruise, but they do it with 300-plus hp and considerably more than 12.7 gph.

This Mooney is known by several names: the M-20K, the Encore and the 252 TSE."

First of all, the 252s I see seem to be earlier years than the Encore. The Encores seem to be from about '97-'98 or so. So is there a difference in these planes? It seems I have read that the Encore was a HP upgrade over the 252 and had a greater useful load?

I have also read about an Encore 'conversion' for the 252 that ups the HP to 220 and useful load by a couple of hundred pounds.

Also, is it actually possible to go 200KTS at 12.7GPH as the article said?

Is this model a good choice for a Mooney?

If someone would straighten this all out for me I would appreciate it. : )

[KSMooniac]

Welcome!  You have it pretty much figured out already.  The 231, 252, and Encore are all names of the M20K model.  The first two have a 210 hp TSIO-360 engine, and the Encore has a mod to bump it to 220 hp along with a nice useful load bump to overcome empty weight growth over the years.  It is possible to convert a 252 to an Encore, and one of our members here (Parker) just did that for his 252.  (Try the search function)  It isn't terribly complicated or expensive (in typical aviation dollars) but getting factory parts for the conversion might be difficult now.  200 KTAS on 12.7 GPH is very likely attainable, but you might have to get into the low flight levels to get there.  I think Parker is ~ 190 KTAS on 11.X GPH flying lean of peak at 17-18,000.

There aren't many Encores out there, especially for sale at any given time, although it seems over the past few months there have been 2-3 on the market which is unusual.  You can also get a FIKI TKS on the Encores and I believe the 252 as well, but not the 231.

The entire line provides a continuum of "niceness" relative to purchase price, so if that is the plane for you just figure out your budget and then start shopping!  The early model 231s can be had for well under $100k these days, while the Encores will tickle $200k.  A few years ago they were fetching ~$250k, though.  

Some say the 252 (and Encore) were the best planes Mooney ever built.  Hard to argue with that assessment IMO unless you desire to carry 4 adults on a trip with some luggage as my K models won't have the useful load to do it.  Some of the Encores might, though.

Read some more here:  http://mooneypilots.com/ by clicking on the "MAPA Log Sample Articles" tab, then the link to the K models.  (can't post a direct link to that site)  I haven't read it in a while, but just took a quick skim and would only take issue with the discussion about eating cylinders.  With modern engine monitors and a good dose of engine management education, it is NOT difficult to make a set of jugs last for an entire TBO run, but that is another discussion that has been beat to death here already.

[Parker_Woodruff]

As Scott said, I have a 1987 Mooney M20K. I converted it to an Encore last year. The performance provided by the conversion makes it legal for me to carry a 1050lb useful load.  (The Encore adds 230lbs of capacity).

Some TAS numbers I've experienced while slightly lean of peak:

14,000 - 173 KTAS, 10.9 GPH

16,000 - 183 KTAS 11.9 GPH

17,000 - 190 KTAS 11.9-12 GPH

19,000 - 188 KTAS 11.8 GPH

All these performance numbers are Lean of Peak. It's hard to keep the engine cool at high power settings unless you are LOP, or have the cowl flaps open to a less-than-desirable degree. 

I am absolutely impressed with my airplane and can't see flying anything else at the moment. Another note, if you typically fly down below 9000' or so, your performance will be about the same as a Mooney M20J.

I owned an M20J before my current ship and it's a better plane for poking holes in the sky. But my plane is used for cross country flying 80% of the time, or more. I want to be able to quickly climb above the summer convective buildups to where the air is cool and smooth. The turbocharger helps.

And there's nothing like busting 240 knots eastbound with a kickin' tailwind...

[Parker_Woodruff]

Also, 200KTAS is entirely possible while LOP, but you'll likely need to be at FL180 or higher to see such numbers. 

[PTK]

Quote: Parker_Woodruff

Some TAS numbers I've experienced while slightly lean of peak:

14,000 - 173 KTAS, 10.9 GPH

16,000 - 183 KTAS 11.9 GPH

17,000 - 190 KTAS 11.9-12 GPH

19,000 - 188 KTAS 11.8 GPH

All these performance numbers are Lean of Peak. It's hard to keep the engine cool at high power settings unless you are LOP, or have the cowl flaps open to a less-than-desirable degree. 

 

[Parker_Woodruff]

At the 17,000 and 19,000 ft altitudes they were about 31", 2550 RPM, and lean of peak. Unfortunately my #2 cylinder is the last one to peak when everything else is about 50 LOP. More than 10-15 LOP it starts to get rough, but it's better and the cyl is cooler than the ROP alternative. 

[BrianNC]

Thanks for the info guys. That clears it up. Just a few more questions.

Is there any other Mooney that compares to that speed with that low of fuel burn?

And is this the longest body Mooney made? I think the 231 is shorter, but is the Encore the long body?

Also, how does it compare to the Bravo? The only reason I ask is that I see the Bravo has its own forum, so I was wondering if there was something 'special' about that model.

[BrianNC]

One other thing, I am kind of a big guy, and everyone talks about the size and comfort of an A36 Bonanza in the cockpit, but the Mooney is actually wider by an inch and a half. It has about 5.5" less height, but I'm 5'10" which isn't overly tall. So why the 'small cabin' talk with the Mooney? Is it still a tighter fit, or is it just a perceived thing?

[Parker_Woodruff]

The M20J will be about the same speed, but only down low. It'll burn less gas to do 155 knots. 

 

The M20K is more comfortable to me than an A36, but the A36 is more passenger friendly, in my opinion. 

 

I find I have just as much, if not, more headroom in the M20 over the A36. 

 

You need today both and make the decision for yourself. I'm sure someone on this board can help you with the Mooney half of that. 

 

The M20K is a midbody. Longbodies started with the M20L - M20TN. 

 

[Hank]

Welcome, Brian!

There's lots of talk about Mooneys being 'tight' for two reasons:

1) The seat is close to the floorpan, so you sit in sportscar mode with your feet out in front of you. Cessna and Beech pilots sit more upright with their feet flat on the floor.

2) Early Mooneys like mine, the short-body, have virtually no back seat legroom. Some people will sit on one rear seat with their feet in the opposite footwell for comfort.

3) Oh, yeah, the panel is closer than in many other planes. But I can reach every button, knob and switch [except breakers on the right side] without having to lean forward. That's beneficial when the going gets rough.

I've had my plane for almost five years now, and love it! Get a turbo model if you live in or visit the intermountain west regularly, or fly far enough to be above 15-16K often. I typically cruise back-and-forth to Charlotte Exec, Fayetteville or the Atlanta area at 8-10K, sometimes a little higher around Asheville if the wind is strong to clear the bumps. A J-model would run ~20 knots faster for an extra 2½-3 gph. but I'm a Cheap B@stard so that's fine by me.

P.S.--there are three kinds of people in the world:  those who can count, and those who can't.

[WilliamR]

I think the Mooney has a bad rep with cabin size is due to the geometry of the roof.  Basically, the roof is more rounded than a Bonanza.  Sort of like a Lear and the old joke how you can tell a Lear Captain from an FO....  by the direction their head tilts.  However, with most of the Ks, save the early 231s, the seats are fully articulating and can be set low.  I am 5'11" and 200lbs.  I simply roll my seat very low, but not to the bottom which still gives better over the panel vision than a long body (they have tall instrument panels).  I have yet to hit my head on the ceiling and I have flown in some pretty rough turb. 

I've had my 252 for 6 years and about 800 hours. 

The Bravo is unique mainly due to its engine.  It is turbo charged, but to keep the valve guides cool, they use hoses to pump oil to the guides, hence the wet head moniker.

If you can't find anyone around CLT, PM me.  Although I'm in Atlanta, I need to get up to Charlotte soon to visit the in-laws.  I fly into JQF every few months.

 

[BrianNC]

Quote: WilliamR

I think the Mooney has a bad rep with cabin size is due to the geometry of the roof.  Basically, the roof is more rounded than a Bonanza.  Sort of like a Lear and the old joke how you can tell a Lear Captain from an FO....  by the direction their head tilts.  However, with most of the Ks, save the early 231s, the seats are fully articulating and can be set low.  I am 5'11" and 200lbs.  I simply roll my seat very low, but not to the bottom which still gives better over the panel vision than a long body (they have tall instrument panels).  I have yet to hit my head on the ceiling and I have flown in some pretty rough turb. 

I've had my 252 for 6 years and about 800 hours. 

The Bravo is unique mainly due to its engine.  It is turbo charged, but to keep the valve guides cool, they use hoses to pump oil to the guides, hence the wet head moniker.

If you can't find anyone around CLT, PM me.  Although I'm in Atlanta, I need to get up to Charlotte soon to visit the in-laws.  I fly into JQF every few months.

 

[jackn]

I also have a 252/Encore conversion. Mine has TKS. At 75% power and 14 gph(RoP), I see approx. 160kts at 5,000', 170kts at 10,000', and 180kts at 15,000'. Never been above 17,000' so no data there. I usually fly at 65% pwr, so knock 5-7kts off those #s and FF at 12 gph.These keep my EGTs around 1400, and TiT around 1500 deg. You can easily get to 10 gph flying locally.

When I travel, I can load 100 gallons of fuel, 55 lbs of TKS, 2 adults, & lots of luggage/skis, etc.

The #2 cylinder in mine is also the last to peak.

I'm 6' and am very comfortable.

[Parker_Woodruff]

Jack,

Are you FIKI or anti-ice? I was hoping CAV Aerospace doesnt have anything against Encore "converted" airplanes. Minus the interior, my 252 is in every respect an Encore. 

FIKI is on my wish list...but it would only be added with discretion and I would be locking myself in to 252BH for a long time

[sreid]

Parker, Jack,

What TAS and fuel flow do you get in the 3000 feet range?  I really like the 252, but it's not uncommon for me to have to fly trips VFR at low altitude in the winter, stuck below an overcast with icing conditions. 

Steve

[Z W]

In the 262 (which is a M20k 231 with the engine and various airframe parts of a 252), I usually see:

10,000-12,000 ft, ~75% power (28 MP 2500 RPM) 11.5 GPH, 175 KTAS

14,000-16,000 ft, ~75% power (28 MP 2500 RPM) 11.0 GPH, 185 KTAS

I lean to peak TIT, which is the recommendation from ModWorks in the POH supplement for the 252 engine conversion mod.  Haven't had it up to the flight levels yet, since I was lacking the instrument rating.  Now that I have the rating I'll give that a shot next time I'm headed east.

[Z W]

Quote: sreid

Parker, Jack,

What TAS and fuel flow do you get in the 3000 feet range?  I really like the 252, but it's not uncommon for me to have to fly trips VFR at low altitude in the winter, stuck below an overcast with icing conditions. 

Steve

 

About 150 KTAS and 13 GPH at 3,000.  Closer to 160 KTAS as you get up to 7,000 or 8,000, with about 12 GPH.  The plane really likes to fly high.  I haven't flown a J, but easily believe all the other posts I've read that say one will outperform a K below 10,000.

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: sreid

Parker, Jack,

What TAS and fuel flow do you get in the 3000 feet range?  I really like the 252, but it's not uncommon for me to have to fly trips VFR at low altitude in the winter, stuck below an overcast with icing conditions. 

Steve

[jackn]

I just had the non-cert system istalled. The difference is; the FIKI's panels have more holes per sq in(smaller holes), 2nd pump, and heated stall. The fluid flow is the same. Pice is $15k more for FIKI and adds add'l 15lbs. The real reason why I didn't go FIKI was because those panels have cut-outs for the wing taxi/landing lights, and I didn't want to cut holes in my wings and move my lights from the cowl. I actually have more coverage because I don't have the wing lights. Also, you cannot go LED for those lights. I don't fly for a living, and am willing to wait a day(or two). I won't fly into an area of SLD threat, convective front, or hard IFR in the western mountains.

I have to hand it to the folks at CAV, especially Jeff Holden. Great job! They met me a the airport (Saturday comin, Sunday going), gave me a car, helped with hotel & travel arrangements. A lot of disassembly goes into the process. Whenever they found something, they were quick with an e-mail & photos. Everthing was fixed quickly and very reasonably. The job was done on-time at at their quoted price. The wings and tail look as if they just came from the factory. Where they had to cut and fabricate a new panel for the filler, their paint guy matched color & sceme perfectly.

I had thought of trading my plane in for one with FIKI, but I like my plane, and quite frankly, I prefer flying with a NEW non-cert system than a 15 year old FIKI system of unknown maintenance.

[jackn]

sreid, If I fly at 300', its because I'm going to the next airport or sightseeing. In that case I'm doing 143ish at 10 gph. Still moving.

[WilliamR]

Excellent.

[BrianNC]

Quote: WilliamR

Excellent.  I am at KFFC (Peachtree City) which isn't too bad a drive from my condo in downtown.  I'm on the waiting list at PDK and give instruction there routinely. 

I usually run my airplane at 75% which is about 14 gph at all altitudes.  That's no less than 125F ROP EGT on all cylinders.  TIT rarely goes above 1525F  The engine runs pretty rough LOP which is not uncommon for that series of engine.  I've done the LOP test and all cylinders are well balanced (within .3 gals of each other).  My guess is that the engine is very sensitive to mag timing and spark plug resistance.  I haven't had the time to test that theory though.  I am not a fan of running <125F ROP or <25 LOP.  My choice, my engine, my money.  Others may have other opinions and that's fine. 

As for speeds, between 3000 and 5000, that's about 155kts +/- 5 kts due to significant variations in ISA.  I rarely spend much time at those altitudes even going around the ATL Class B.  At 10k, I true between 177 and 180 kts.  At 17k, I true about 194 kts.  In the summer I usually have to crack the cowl flap a little to keep the hottest CHT below 380.  However, it doesn't cost me any noticeable airspeed.

The 231 runs a little slower and a little hotter stock.  But those can be overcome with some mods to the engine, cowling, etc.

Hope that helps. 

[orangemtl]

Quote: BrianNC

Thanks for the info guys. That clears it up. Just a few more questions.

Is there any other Mooney that compares to that speed with that low of fuel burn?

And is this the longest body Mooney made? I think the 231 is shorter, but is the Encore the long body?

Also, how does it compare to the Bravo? The only reason I ask is that I see the Bravo has its own forum, so I was wondering if there was something 'special' about that model.

[BrianNC]

So what is it about the Bravo that it has its own forum? Something 'special' about it?

[gjkirsch]

The Bravo is a long body Mooney (same airframe as Ovation, Acclaim, Eagle, Porsche) with a turbocharged lycoming engine versus Continental and modified car in the rest.