Mooney upgrade

[snowman]

Hy every one 

 

It's been a long time i spoke here .

 

    Now I have a Mooney 1967  M20F EXECUTIVE since 2003 , Now at 56 years I want to make me a Gift with a Turbo Mooney .  I would want to have +- 200 kt mooney , At the base, I looked for a 252 but now I also considere th Mooney M20M bravo   .

 What's the between these 2 model  and mre of that what's is the fair price  to do not cross for  20M with glass cockpit? and if someone have a plane suggestion you are very welcome.

 

Martin

 

P.S.Also we Now have this 1967 Mooney for sale  at 68,000$ us 

 

 

 

 

[PilotX]

Always buy a Bravo. ‘Nuff said.

[Fritz1]

Bought the Bravo 7 years ago, had considered an Encore, lots of tradeoffs, talking to shops and owners I eventually decided for the Lyc, tad noseheavy, typically about 20 Bravos for sale on controller / tradeaplane, reading ads and logs and inspecting planes you will arrive at a good decision, enjoy the journey!

[skykrawler]

As long as you are prepared for high fuel flow and extra expense of maintaining turbo chargers, oxygen systems and maybe TKS - go for it.

[Patrick Horan]

I used to own a M20C. I just upgraded to a M20M and I absolutely love the plane. The cargo space  is really nice. I have great speeds. When I do local flights I pull the power out to like 150knots and still getting 12gallons. I would the g1000 bravo. I picked the bravo over the m20k due to it being a long body and that it had a lycoming engine in it. 

[snowman]

How is the normal cruise speed for the bravo and 252 ?

[exM20K]

12 hours ago, snowman said:

How is the normal cruise speed for the bravo and 252 ?

It depends…. 
really, the right question to ask is, “how will the candidate models perform on my 70-80-90% mission?”

https://fltplan.com Has performance models built in which I found in the past to be very good, and I’m a big fan of what ForeFlight does (at a price) with the flight planning performance, including runway performance.

FWIW, I owned a 231 a long time ago, and when I returned to the Mooney fold in 2016, I sought a FIKI Encore, but there were none for sale.  I like LOP operations, and the continental models are simply better in this mode.  I have less than one hour in a bravo.

 

-dan

 

[PilotX]

On 7/11/2024 at 6:22 AM, skykrawler said:

As long as you are prepared for high fuel flow and extra expense of maintaining turbo chargers, oxygen systems and maybe TKS - go for it.

Pilots are cheap. Better to buy a couple of posters instead! 

 

[1980Mooney]

On 7/11/2024 at 7:22 AM, skykrawler said:

As long as you are prepared for high fuel flow and extra expense of maintaining turbo chargers, oxygen systems and maybe TKS - go for it.

 

On 7/11/2024 at 8:34 AM, Patrick Horan said:

I used to own a M20C. I just upgraded to a M20M and I absolutely love the plane. The cargo space  is really nice. I have great speeds. When I do local flights I pull the power out to like 150knots and still getting 12gallons. I would the g1000 bravo. I picked the bravo over the m20k due to it being a long body and that it had a lycoming engine in it. 

It is not just the extra cost to maintain the single turbo charger, it is just a very expensive engine. 

And heavy engine (702 lbs).  Useful Load for a TKS equiped Bravo is 840 lbs. per Sept, 1996 Flying Magazine test flight of the then newly introduced TLS Bravo.  With full fuel (534 lbs.) that leaves only 306 lbs. payload for passengers, crap on the hat rack and luggage.

Just make sure to sell it before it needs major engine work.....

Edited July 14 by 1980Mooney

[Fritz1]

Best recollection from Lycoming manual Bravo engine is 550 lb, 700 lb sounds like ship weight of crated engine, not sure about the alternators

[1980Mooney]

7 hours ago, Fritz1 said:

Best recollection from Lycoming manual Bravo engine is 550 lb, 700 lb sounds like ship weight of crated engine, not sure about the alternators

I think you are right. It is hard to find real world weights of full engines with accessories. Nothing official from Mooney or Lycoming that I can find. Some have posted anywhere from 540 to 590 lbs. dry. Compared to @snowman ‘s current IO-360-A1A, the Bravo upgrade adds 2 cylinders, turbo,intercooler, and TKS will require a second alternator. It will have a heavier engine mount/frame, heavier cowl and a possibly heavier prop (his F shows a 3 blade) hung father out. And although not specifically engine weight, that engine adds about 6-21 lbs of Charlie weights in the tail for CG. 

[Rick Junkin]

On 7/11/2024 at 9:36 PM, snowman said:

How is the normal cruise speed for the bravo and 252 ?

I fly a TLS/Bravo. There is a good chart that shows a comparative plot of book cruise speeds vs altitude for alot of the Mooney models, and unfortunately I can't find it right now. Maybe someone else can and post it here? It really depends on how hard you're willing to push the engine, but the 252 can out-perform a Bravo at higher altitudes at the same or lower fuel flows. I run LOP in the mid teens and conservatively get 170-175KTAS at 13.2 GPH for an efficiency of about 13 NM/Gallon, no wind.

EDIT: Found it! Again these are book max performance values, which with the Bravo will be extremely unkind to your engine and nobody uses them. I think I was remembering the Rocket performance which is better than the Bravo at altitude. The 252 and M20M are much closer in performance when the M is operated more conservatively, and the K generally gets the edge on economy. LOP ops affects that, but I can't speak to real world 252 numbers. However, the chart gives a reasonable relative comparison across the models.

As for the discussion of weights, again it depends. To compare with the data posted above from 1996, my airplane comes in at an empty weight of 2460 with full 55# of TKS fluid, vs the 2527 in the original 1996 data sheet. The Charlie weights in the tail can be removed in many airplanes that have had glass panel upgrades, gaining another ~20# of useful load. According to the chart in the maintenance manual I could have taken mine out after my panel upgrade (and I did for a short time) but I'm a big boy at 270# so I put them back in to keep the CG further back beyond the max weight step when I'm solo with little baggage. Many of us fly with the rear seats removed, gaining another 30# of useful load. So for my airplane if I emptied the TKS tank, removed the Charlie weights and have the back seats out, my empty weight goes from 2460 down to 2355, a whopping 170# less than the data sheet and yielding a useful load of 1,013!!

This doesn't answer the engine weight question definitively, but the standard dry weight listed on page 2-4  in the Lycoming TIO-540 Operator's Manual (attached) is 493#.

I'm waiting for a 252 owner to weigh in. I'm a fan of that airplane, perhaps the best example of a Mooney ever produced. Or maybe an Encore. Or... hell they're all great.

Cheers,
Junkman

1-Lycoming TIO 540 series operating handbook.pdf

[Fritz1]

yep, see it now, standard dry weight on the TIO-540 AF1B is 493 lb, anything that takes weight off the nose is good, real world mid weight cruise on my FIKI Bravo is 185 KT at FL190, 2300/30" 18.5 gph 100 dF rich on 1st EGT to peak, TIT 1580, CHT about 380 standard atmosphere, which computes to about 78% power I think, about the absolute max you want to run continuously, in the extreme I think the FIKI Bravo will reach 215KT at 25k, fuel flow probably has to 22.5-23 gph to keep temps in check, I have never tried that high and that much power

[Pinecone]

My 252, Encore Upgrade for higher GW, was just weighed after the avionics upgrade.

It was weighed with full fuel, but due to calibrating the Cies senders, they drained the tanks, put in 1.5 per side (book unusable fuel) to calibrate Empty.   Then exactly 52 gallons per side.  They did subtract the fuel at 6.02 pounds per gallon.

Useful load is 1061.6 pounds.

At 17,000, I cruise at 29.5", 2300 RPM, at 10.1 GPH, LOP for 64% power, for a 175 KTAS cruise.

[LANCECASPER]

10 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

I think you are right. It is hard to find real world weights of full engines with accessories. Nothing official from Mooney or Lycoming that I can find. Some have posted anywhere from 540 to 590 lbs. dry. Compared to @snowman ‘s current IO-360-A1A, the Bravo upgrade adds 2 cylinders, turbo,intercooler, and TKS will require a second alternator. It will have a heavier engine mount/frame, heavier cowl and a possibly heavier prop (his F shows a 3 blade) hung father out. And although not specifically engine weight, that engine adds about 6-21 lbs of Charlie weights in the tail for CG. 

Every M20M ever built had two 70 amp alternators, whether it has TKS or not. 

[Rick Junkin]

3 hours ago, Pinecone said:

At 17,000, I cruise at 29.5", 2300 RPM, at 10.1 GPH, LOP for 64% power, for a 175 KTAS cruise.

There it is! Thanks @Pinecone.

@snowman, this is the comparison you were looking for in real terms from real people flying real airplanes. See the 252 Encore performance numbers above. And also the Bravo numbers at 19,000 from @Fritz above.

Here are the same numbers for my Bravo at 17,000 cruise: 30", 2200 RPM, at 13.2 GPH, LOP for 70% power, for a 180 KTAS cruise.

Nearly identical, with the 252 Encore winning for economy and useful load. The Bravo can go faster if you whip it, up around 190 KTAS, but it costs at least 18 GPH ROP to get it. The Encore can also go faster but for less of a fuel penalty. So the only other factor that comes to mind is the Encore mid body vs the Bravo long body, and that's pretty meaningless (in my opinion) unless you have a regular mission to carry folks in the back seat. There are other factors, but this should get you headed where you want to go in your decision process.

Good luck with your search!

Cheers,
Junkman

EDIT: To answer your question about prices, if I were to put my Bravo up for sale right now I would be asking in the neighborhood of $250K. Well maintained 1989 airplane with a mid time engine and a contemporary glass panel. But it isn't for sale and won't be for quite some time (knock on wood) .

[Niko182]

24 minutes ago, Rick Junkin said:

So the only other factor that comes to mind is the Encore mid body vs the Bravo long body, and that's pretty meaningless (in my opinion) unless you have a regular mission to carry folks in the back seat.

There is no different in seating size in the back between the more modern mid bodies and long bodies. The difference in space is in the luggage area. Also there is slightly more room in the front seats since the landing gear is further forward on the long bodies. 

[Rick Junkin]

5 minutes ago, Niko182 said:

There is no different in seating size in the back between the more modern mid bodies and long bodies. The difference in space is in the luggage area. Also there is slightly more room in the front seats since the landing gear is further forward on the long bodies. 

I stand corrected.

[Pinecone]

12 hours ago, Rick Junkin said:

 

Here are the same numbers for my Bravo at 17,000 cruise: 30", 2200 RPM, at 13.2 GPH, LOP for 70% power, for a 180 KTAS cruise.

Nearly identical, with the 252 Encore winning for economy and useful load. The Bravo can go faster if you whip it, up around 190 KTAS, but it costs at least 18 GPH ROP to get it. The Encore can also go faster but for less of a fuel penalty. So the only other factor that comes to mind is the Encore mid body vs the Bravo long body, and that's pretty meaningless (in my opinion) unless you have a regular mission to carry folks in the back seat. There are other factors, but this should get you headed where you want to go in your decision process.

FYI, according to the book, you can to 185 KTAS in an Encore at 18,000 for a fuel flow of about 12.7 GPH.

And isn't the extra length of a long body all in the baggage compartment?

[Rick Junkin]

14 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

And isn't the extra length of a long body all in the baggage compartment?

The baggage compartment and forward of the front seats. I was corrected above. 

The forward space allows the front seats to be a little further forward, effectively creating more leg room in the back.

[Fly Boomer]

18 hours ago, Rick Junkin said:

if I were to put my Bravo up for sale right now I would be asking in the neighborhood of $250K.

Might be too low.  I have no idea about paint, interior, or panel, but I saw a J the other day asking north of $300,000.

[Pinecone]

58 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

but I saw a J the other day asking north of $300,000.

Link?

I would ask $300K - $325K for my 252/Encore now.  Nice paint. New interior.  AWESOME panel. Low time engine.

[ArtVandelay]

Link?
I would ask $300K - $325K for my 252/Encore now.  Nice paint. New interior.  AWESOME panel. Low time engine.

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?make=MOONEY&model_group=MOONEY+M20+SERIES&model=M20J+201&listing_id=2431320&s-type=aircraft


It’s TN.

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, ArtVandelay said:

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?make=MOONEY&model_group=MOONEY+M20+SERIES&model=M20J+201&listing_id=2431320&s-type=aircraft


It’s TN.

Still not anything near a $300k airplane imho.

 

[Fly Boomer]

1 hour ago, Pinecone said:

Link?

I would ask $300K - $325K for my 252/Encore now.  Nice paint. New interior.  AWESOME panel. Low time engine.

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Single+Engine+Piston&make=MOONEY&model=M20J+201&listing_id=2431320&s-type=aircraft