Upgrade Questions M20E to Encore/Or Encore Conversion

[mooneydemi]

Considering this upgrade and talking to my partners in the current M20E we own.  Current plane is great and has the rayjay Turbo I have been a partner for about 6 months.  What I am learning is for some of the cross country stuff I am doing the plane really is a 2 person plane or maybe one small short person in the back.  Love Mooney's and wanting to stay in the family I am thinking the encore seems to be the best fit having the useful load to take 4 people or 3 guys with some bags and still have enough fuel for 3 hour legs with reserves with similar fuel burn little more but going faster too.  My questions for those that have made the move.  What do you think the maintenance cost differences will be between these two planes?  I know the Encore has two more cylinders.  We have a turbo now but guessing the turbo system in the encore/252 is more complex.  Wanting to get some of your thoughts on what we should plan for if we make this move.

 

I have read the forum over the years and alot lately.  Thanks for an insights any of you can give. 

[Danb]

First off all Mooneys are great, but as you climb the food chain they have obviously advantages. In 19 I purchased a 201, great plane, 1988 a new 201 upgraded avionics and interior, in 2005 went to a long body  2006 Bravo Gx loved the plane but Premier didn’t advise me a new wonderful Acclaim was coming out very shortly I purchased an almost new Acclaim which took awhile for me to love it as much as my other models. Arguably an Encore may be the best Mooney made but measuring our needs and reasons are quite important IMO most Mooneys are great two person planes, there not 310s 210s Malibus etc. I need a two person plane most of our flights are 800-1500 miles monthly. The acclaim is great but no LR tanks which my Bravo had. Choose your mission then fit your plane into those parameters. Good luck a lot of the fun is looking for your new plane. Mine is in annual an should be ready next week Have fun looking for you new transportation 

D

[mike_elliott]

Was this Phil Guziaks E by chance?

[Will.iam]

1 hour ago, mooneydemi said:

Considering this upgrade and talking to my partners in the current M20E we own.  Current plane is great and has the rayjay Turbo I have been a partner for about 6 months.  What I am learning is for some of the cross country stuff I am doing the plane really is a 2 person plane or maybe one small short person in the back.  Love Mooney's and wanting to stay in the family I am thinking the encore seems to be the best fit having the useful load to take 4 people or 3 guys with some bags and still have enough fuel for 3 hour legs with reserves with similar fuel burn little more but going faster too.  My questions for those that have made the move.  What do you think the maintenance cost differences will be between these two planes?  I know the Encore has two more cylinders.  We have a turbo now but guessing the turbo system in the encore/252 is more complex.  Wanting to get some of your thoughts on what we should plan for if we make this move.

 

I have read the forum over the years and alot lately.  Thanks for an insights any of you can give. 

Problem is there were so few encores made compared to E’s and being highly sought after very few go up for sale, good luck finding one for sale. 

[LANCECASPER]

12 minutes ago, Will.iam said:

Problem is there were so few encores made compared to E’s and being highly sought after very few go up for sale, good luck finding one for sale. 

36 Encores to be exact from 1997-1998. (25-2000 to 25-2035). Less than a handful of those were converted to Rockets. 

Encores still flying in the U. S. and Canada, best guess somewhere between 20 and 25

Mooney 252s aren't exactly plentiful - only 231 of them made from 1986 - 1990. At least a couple dozen, maybe more, converted to Rockets and a few of the fleet crashed. Probably somewhere between 10 and 20 of the 252s have had installed all of the upgrades to allow the 230 pound Gross Weight increase that the Encore received.

How many 252s (non-Rockets) are still flying in the U. S. and Canada? Best guess . . .somewhere between 125 and 150.

[jlunseth]

There are quite a few 231’s out there. The UL is usually in the 900-1000+ vicinity. The turbo is more manual than the 252, the pilot is responsible for MP. They are much more available than the Encore or even the 252. The GW went up in the 252’s, especially the Encore, but as in the general progression up the model ladder with Mooney, the UL did not always go up as fast as the GW, or even at all. The beauty of the M20K’s in my opinion is that they are fuel thrifty. You don’t need or want to carry 100+ gallons of fuel if you can fly LOP. Any of the K engines will do that if set up properly.

[Z W]

I went from a M20C to a M20K with the TSIO-360-MB (252) engine.

It is definitely better for back seat passengers.  3 adult males and go is no problem.  4 adults and go, you have to watch your W&B, and are generally limited to 2 hour legs, or else you'll be staring at the fuel gauge and worrying about headwinds, which isn't how I like to fly.  If you're hauling 4 adults you will have to tell them to pack light, which is not always popular.

It does not climb that great at max gross of 2900 until you're 100+ KIAS.  I suspect the Encores or Encore conversions don't climb any better at their higher gross weight, but no  Encore owner talks about that.  It's a pretty good load hauler as long as you offload gas for cabin payload.  At 12 GPH and 170-ish KTAS, it goes a long way on not a lot of gas.  Maybe the best in the Mooney fleet for that.

The maintenance cost has been more than on the C model, but in the grand scheme of owning a Mooney, it's a rounding error.  The turbo has required a little bit, but not much.  Dual alternators and voltage regulators have been more expensive.  Speed brakes have to be maintained.  Extended range tanks to have leaks patched in.  Hot prop.  Retractable step.  Onboard oxygen (this has been expensive).  More avionics than you'll usually have in a short body, but not necessarily.  Have replaced some cylinders.  Have not had to overhaul the engine, but that's probably where the real cost increase is.  None of the rest of it is major, and all matched to higher capability, but it all has to be fixed, replaced, and upgraded over time.  

If you have a regular mission of 4 adults + bags, I don't think there's any Mooney that will really do it well.  You need a 6-seater.  But the K models are great if that's only an occasional need for you.  And I've found it pretty rare that me and my wife know another couple that 1) wants to fly GA with us, and 2) has the flexible schedule required to set off in a non-deiced piston single without radar for a trip, and being OK with the possibility of being delayed 3+ days for the departure and the return if the weather turns bad.

[Ragsf15e]

25 minutes ago, Z W said:

I went from a M20C to a M20K with the TSIO-360-MB (252) engine.

It is definitely better for back seat passengers.  3 adult males and go is no problem.  4 adults and go, you have to watch your W&B, and are generally limited to 2 hour legs, or else you'll be staring at the fuel gauge and worrying about headwinds, which isn't how I like to fly.  If you're hauling 4 adults you will have to tell them to pack light, which is not always popular.

It does not climb that great at max gross of 2900 until you're 100+ KIAS.  I suspect the Encores or Encore conversions don't climb any better at their higher gross weight, but no  Encore owner talks about that.  It's a pretty good load hauler as long as you offload gas for cabin payload.  At 12 GPH and 170-ish KTAS, it goes a long way on not a lot of gas.  Maybe the best in the Mooney fleet for that.

The maintenance cost has been more than on the C model, but in the grand scheme of owning a Mooney, it's a rounding error.  The turbo has required a little bit, but not much.  Dual alternators and voltage regulators have been more expensive.  Speed brakes have to be maintained.  Extended range tanks to have leaks patched in.  Hot prop.  Retractable step.  Onboard oxygen (this has been expensive).  More avionics than you'll usually have in a short body, but not necessarily.  Have replaced some cylinders.  Have not had to overhaul the engine, but that's probably where the real cost increase is.  None of the rest of it is major, and all matched to higher capability, but it all has to be fixed, replaced, and upgraded over time.  

If you have a regular mission of 4 adults + bags, I don't think there's any Mooney that will really do it well.  You need a 6-seater.  But the K models are great if that's only an occasional need for you.  And I've found it pretty rare that me and my wife know another couple that 1) wants to fly GA with us, and 2) has the flexible schedule required to set off in a non-deiced piston single without radar for a trip, and being OK with the possibility of being delayed 3+ days for the departure and the return if the weather turns bad.

Well said.

[LANCECASPER]

1 hour ago, Z W said:

It does not climb that great at max gross of 2900 until you're 100+ KIAS.  I suspect the Encores or Encore conversions don't climb any better at their higher gross weight, but no  Encore owner talks about that.  It's a pretty good load hauler as long as you offload gas for cabin payload.  At 12 GPH and 170-ish KTAS, it goes a long way on not a lot of gas.  Maybe the best in the Mooney fleet for that.

I had an Encore and I will agree with the climb performance you describe if you have a two blade prop. I've never flown one with the three blade - but would think that would help considerably in getting off the ground and initial climb at least.

When they re-introduced the K in 1997, in the testing of a few props (a couple of two blades a couple of three blades including an MT), the highest cruise speeds Mooney found were with the two blade they had used on the 252.

[mooneydemi]

3 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

Was this Phil Guziaks E by chance?

Not sure on this.   Original partner had owned it for 20 plus years.    

[mooneydemi]

1 hour ago, Z W said:

I went from a M20C to a M20K with the TSIO-360-MB (252) engine.

It is definitely better for back seat passengers.  3 adult males and go is no problem.  4 adults and go, you have to watch your W&B, and are generally limited to 2 hour legs, or else you'll be staring at the fuel gauge and worrying about headwinds, which isn't how I like to fly.  If you're hauling 4 adults you will have to tell them to pack light, which is not always popular.

It does not climb that great at max gross of 2900 until you're 100+ KIAS.  I suspect the Encores or Encore conversions don't climb any better at their higher gross weight, but no  Encore owner talks about that.  It's a pretty good load hauler as long as you offload gas for cabin payload.  At 12 GPH and 170-ish KTAS, it goes a long way on not a lot of gas.  Maybe the best in the Mooney fleet for that.

The maintenance cost has been more than on the C model, but in the grand scheme of owning a Mooney, it's a rounding error.  The turbo has required a little bit, but not much.  Dual alternators and voltage regulators have been more expensive.  Speed brakes have to be maintained.  Extended range tanks to have leaks patched in.  Hot prop.  Retractable step.  Onboard oxygen (this has been expensive).  More avionics than you'll usually have in a short body, but not necessarily.  Have replaced some cylinders.  Have not had to overhaul the engine, but that's probably where the real cost increase is.  None of the rest of it is major, and all matched to higher capability, but it all has to be fixed, replaced, and upgraded over time.  

If you have a regular mission of 4 adults + bags, I don't think there's any Mooney that will really do it well.  You need a 6-seater.  But the K models are great if that's only an occasional need for you.  And I've found it pretty rare that me and my wife know another couple that 1) wants to fly GA with us, and 2) has the flexible schedule required to set off in a non-deiced piston single without radar for a trip, and being OK with the possibility of being delayed 3+ days for the departure and the return if the weather turns bad.

Thanks for this detailed feedback.   Appreciate the info.  

[Pinecone]

I am biased, but feel the 252 converted to Encore is the best setup.  Higher UL due to lower empty weight.

Mine gets off the ground well, but the initial angle of climb seems shallow.  The rate is good, but at a fairly high forward speed.  Someday I will put on a 3 blade prop, and that should help.

Not sure how many are around, but I see a couple up for sale most times.  And it is still possible to convert a 252 to Encore spec.

[Z W]

7 hours ago, Pinecone said:

Mine gets off the ground well, but the initial angle of climb seems shallow.  The rate is good, but at a fairly high forward speed.  Someday I will put on a 3 blade prop, and that should help.

This is a good way to describe it.  I have a 2-bladed prop.  At max gross, the takeoff roll is pretty slow, I need 3,000+ feet of runway to feel comfortable, even though the book says 2,500 or so is enough and it probably is.  The plane kind of mushes up off the ground around 70 knots.  If you yank too hard you'll hear the stall warning.  You want to accelerate in ground effect.  Once you get the gear and flaps up and hit 100 KIAS, it will do +500 FPM as high as you want to climb and becomes very comfortable.  But until then it's a bit of a runway hog.  The C model never felt that way at its max gross, although with its smaller tanks and back seat, max gross was harder to get to.  

I did this once taking off out of Telluride, 9,000 feet MSL, with 3 adults and 75 gallons (6 hours) of fuel on a 70 degree day.  Altitude doesn't matter much.  The plane will do it and it's amazingly capable.  When you're flying light it leaps up off the runway.  

I would absolutely switch from a short body to the K again.  Sometimes I do miss the C model, especially when the K is in the shop, but it's more I wish I still had one of each.  Both are great planes, just different price points and capabilities.

[kortopates]

I have the 3-blade MT prop on my 252/Encore. Not only does it climb better, but the required pitch to maintain Vx is uncomfortably steep.
No measureable loss in cruise either.
The big con though is taking on and off the lower cowling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fly Boomer]

1 hour ago, kortopates said:

The big con though is taking on and off the lower cowling.

Because it's a 3-blade?  Or something peculiar to the MT?

[Hank]

2 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

Because it's a 3-blade?  Or something peculiar to the MT?

No matter where the prop is positioned, a blade or two is in the way of the lower cowl.

Fortunately on my C, the lower cowl rarely has to come off; then again, it has separate cheek pieces that are easily removed for every oil change.

[Pinecone]

16 hours ago, kortopates said:

I have the 3-blade MT prop on my 252/Encore. Not only does it climb better, but the required pitch to maintain Vx is uncomfortably steep.
No measureable loss in cruise either.
The big con though is taking on and off the lower cowling.

I did NOT need to hear this.  

 

[KSMooniac]

On 5/6/2024 at 4:48 PM, kortopates said:

I have the 3-blade MT prop on my 252/Encore. Not only does it climb better, but the required pitch to maintain Vx is uncomfortably steep.
No measureable loss in cruise either.
The big con though is taking on and off the lower cowling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I concur, except on the J model I have.  I would choose the MT again.

I had not heard that Mooney evaluated an MT for the initial Encore development... that does not surprise me that it was considered, nor does it surprise me that the original 2-blade McCaulley was faster in cruise either.  I believe that would have been the predecessor MT compared to the "modern" version with the Scimitar blades that became available in the 2000's at some point.  I believe it to be a much better prop than the earlier model.

[kortopates]

I don’t think Mooney had the option to evaluate the MTV-12 Scimitar on my Mooney back then. I remember reading they tried both McCauley and Hartzell (3 bladed?) and went with the 2 bladed McCauley. But as you say, the MT is a an improvement, at least in climb.
According to them i could get a few more knots in cruise if i was wiling to go without the prop-deice; but I am not.
Very happy with the performance but i can no longer re-install the cowling without a helper - which is a pain compared to before.
Maybe i’ll learn more tricks with more experience, but it’s still very new to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kortopates]

Especially love the turbine smooth operation!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LANCECASPER]

On 5/7/2024 at 7:02 PM, kortopates said:

I don’t think Mooney had the option to evaluate the MTV-12 Scimitar on my Mooney back then. I remember reading they tried both McCauley and Hartzell (3 bladed?) and went with the 2 bladed McCauley. But as you say, the MT is a an improvement, at least in climb.
According to them i could get a few more knots in cruise if i was wiling to go without the prop-deice; but I am not.
Very happy with the performance but i can no longer re-install the cowling without a helper - which is a pain compared to before.
Maybe i’ll learn more tricks with more experience, but it’s still very new to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They tried an MT 3-blade, but it may be a different model than the one you have.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/1997/august/pilot/mooney-encore

[kortopates]

They tried an MT 3-blade, but it may be a different model than the one you have.
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/1997/august/pilot/mooney-encore

I was actually thinking 252, makes more sense they tested one on the Encore. Got me curious about the model now!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk