Mooney upgrade

[Mcstealth]

10 minutes ago, exM20K said:

252 is 24v and FIKI eligible.  

Yes, but only if the 252 has the dual alternators and the prop slinger ??? 

Something like that if I remember correctly. More Encores had the the dual alternators installed at the factory??? I'm no expert so don't quote me.

[exM20K]

38 minutes ago, Mcstealth said:

Yes, but only if the 252 has the dual alternators and the prop slinger ??? 

Something like that if I remember correctly. More Encores had the the dual alternators installed at the factory??? I'm no expert so don't quote me.

Yes, but neither should be a big deal. Also needs the $6000 heated stall warning.  These are solvable problems, with money.  So, too, is the lack of useful load that would result (Encore conversion). 
 

I replaced the heated prop on my 231 with the slinger when I added no hazard TKS to my 231 a long time ago and am glad I did.

-dan

[Rick Junkin]

1 hour ago, M20F said:

The turbo mafia here  will deny this but a turbo makes it pretty easy to toast your engine if you are not paying attention

That made me laugh. 

[Pinecone]

4 hours ago, exM20K said:

Thought I edited that to 1200, which is what I see.  I don’t math or type well in the morning :-)

And I see more like 800 or so with a cruise climb of 120 125.

[toto]

12 hours ago, Pinecone said:

I would take a HARD look on a shortly before sale field overhaul.

Yeah that seems to be the one thing he hasn’t done - the airplane is 400smoh.

[toto]

12 hours ago, Pinecone said:

I figure that if I sold soon, I could get maybe 50% of the cost of the avionics.

I usually figure that you’ll get the cost of the avionics back in resale, less the installation. So if the hardware is 50k and the total invoice with installation is 80k, you’ll get 50k out of it. 

That’s assuming your radios are still “current” .. you won’t get retail value out of a GNS if you sell the plane today, but you’d get the value out of a GTN. 

(That’s just my gut feel - I have no data to back it up.)

[LANCECASPER]

22 hours ago, Mcstealth said:

Yes, but only if the 252 has the dual alternators and the prop slinger ??? 

Something like that if I remember correctly. More Encores had the the dual alternators installed at the factory??? I'm no expert so don't quote me.

All 36 Encores in 1997-98 came with dual alternators

[Pinecone]

On 7/16/2024 at 10:05 AM, Mcstealth said:

Yes, but only if the 252 has the dual alternators and the prop slinger ??? 

Something like that if I remember correctly. More Encores had the the dual alternators installed at the factory??? I'm no expert so don't quote me.

Most 252s have dual alternators.  But it is something to pay attention to.

Mine came with dual alternators and a hot prop

[snowman]

On 7/16/2024 at 9:54 AM, M20F said:

 
The turbo mafia here  will deny this but a turbo makes it pretty easy to toast your engine if you are not paying attention and has additional annual and incidental expenses.  For example lose a valve you are doing the cylinder and the turbo. 
 
 

 

Just look at that to understand the sense of the turbo....

 

Martin

[snowman]

 

A little story like That

 

2 years ago I open for the third time my 4 cylinder IO360 to change broken rigs  , the second time was the change of 3 cylinder probably cause by the champion spark plug ( champion paid all the cost for that 3 cylinder expense .) and the first 2 cylinder still caused by exessive heat.  By this time  I would operate  my 1967 M20F on the advise of Bob kromer to put all in the dash in climb  or 25 square under 5000 feet ,

   by this time I'm opperate 26RPM(because it was little bit rough at 25) and wide open trotle  50-100 rich of peak.

 It was not rare to open my cowl flapin cruise at over 9500 on the return off Florida by exemple.  the oil consuption have never ever been under 1 quart for 2 hour also even with 4 new cylinder and as the green was at 450 degre  and the red line at 475  deg I was not to worry to put my plane in this condition..

So after the third top in 400hour I looked for the best manner to break my piston ( because all the mecanik said different thinks about that)  , so I turn my interest on Youtube and fall on this guys Mike Bush .

    So I apply his very simple procedure for the break in ( wide open , lower rpm before red line , wide open , cowl flap open , under 3000feet if possible.) Itake a 2 hours fly to visit friend of  mine from CSG3 -CYHM  ( joliette qc to Hamilton ont) and return home at the same day  . surprisely my motor take only 1 quart for 4 hour andat this time it was file.  

      after ,although it made me grind my teeth, I apply the lean of peak procedure 50-100 degre lean  suggested  Mr Bush also remembering the warning of never higher of 380 CHT , surprisly I past of 12-14 gal hour to 8.5to 7.5 gal hour , no more overheat , my oil consuption fall on 1 quarter for 5 hour and my range go sky high !!!  but instead 155kt , I fall at 140-45kt.  (a big deal considering the advantage) today I love my Mooney over the top since this advise.

 

  Now the reason I tell you this story is very simple , like  all the advise of this guy give to me  about the break in and the operation of the Mooney I own since 20 years seem to be true, I would be inclined to believe that he is telling the truth about the advantage of the turbo!

sorry to burst your bubble

 

   Have a great night 

 

Martin

 

 

Edited July 20 by snowman

[PilotX]

On 7/19/2024 at 10:34 PM, snowman said:

Just look at that to understand the sense of the turbo…

 

Martin

I start my takeoff roll at 5600’

[Will.iam]

On 7/20/2024 at 1:28 AM, snowman said:

 

A little story like That

 

2 years ago I open for the third time my 4 cylinder IO360 to change broken rigs  , the second time was the change of 3 cylinder probably cause by the champion spark plug ( champion paid all the cost for that 3 cylinder expense .) and the first 2 cylinder still caused by exessive heat.  By this time  I would operate  my 1967 M20F on the advise of Bob kromer to put all in the dash in climb  or 25 square under 5000 feet ,

   by this time I'm opperate 26RPM(because it was little bit rough at 25) and wide open trotle  50-100 rich of peak.

 It was not rare to open my cowl flapin cruise at over 9500 on the return off Florida by exemple.  the oil consuption have never ever been under 1 quart for 2 hour also even with 4 new cylinder and as the green was at 450 degre  and the red line at 475  deg I was not to worry to put my plane in this condition..

So after the third top in 400hour I looked for the best manner to break my piston ( because all the mecanik said different thinks about that)  , so I turn my interest on Youtube and fall on this guys Mike Bush .

    So I apply his very simple procedure for the break in ( wide open , lower rpm before red line , wide open , cowl flap open , under 3000feet if possible.) Itake a 2 hours fly to visit friend of  mine from CSG3 -CYHM  ( joliette qc to Hamilton ont) and return home at the same day  . surprisely my motor take only 1 quart for 4 hour andat this time it was file.  

      after ,although it made me grind my teeth, I apply the lean of peak procedure 50-100 degre lean  suggested  Mr Bush also remembering the warning of never higher of 380 CHT , surprisly I past of 12-14 gal hour to 8.5to 7.5 gal hour , no more overheat , my oil consuption fall on 1 quarter for 5 hour and my range go sky high !!!  but instead 155kt , I fall at 140-45kt.  (a big deal considering the advantage) today I love my Mooney over the top since this advise.

 

  Now the reason I tell you this story is very simple , like  all the advise of this guy give to me  about the break in and the operation of the Mooney I own since 20 years seem to be true, I would be inclined to believe that he is telling the truth about the advantage of the turbo!

sorry to burst your bubble

 

   Have a great night 

 

Martin

 

 

Martin i own a 252 and also read mike bush philosophy on operations and i agree with mike that i have not had any problems with my turbo it has been very reliable. Also the turbo is easier to operate than the non turbo engine as you keep all knobs forward all the way to cruise altitude unlike the non turbo where you have to keep adjusting the mixture knob, note the 231 mooney does need throttle management / adjustment in takeoff and the climb but it’s a different turbo compared to the other turbo moonies. There is this new pesky AD the FAA put out for turbo V-band clamps that we now have to inspect more frequently and replace every 500 hours, and because this effects all turbos not just mooney but cessna cirrus piper beech etc there is no stock so getting one takes a ling time to procure and is expensive for that mandatory replacement. My dad had a non turbo J and i have the turbo 252 so I have experienced both and i would not give up my turbo even if i did get more useful load in doing so. Back when mooney was selling both it was a 20-30k premium for a turbo version over the NA version. Thanks to all the bad press the 231 got for mismanaging the engine which was easy to do back then with no full engine monitoring of each cylinder and 425 degrees at 1650 tit was considered normal operating range. there were some expensive lessons learned and fear put into the public. Anyway that fear of mismanaging a turbo has translated to turbo used models at one time going for only slightly higher than non turbo which makes the turbo version even better of a deal IMO. We now know for longevity no higher then 380 cht in cruise and i try to stay at 1550 tit. Some will say 1600tit is ok. The closer you get to the limit the quicker you will need an overhaul.
Good luck with the hunt. 

[snowman]

Now I probably found a Buyer for my Mooney .

 

Now I have  make a choice of these 2 canadian Mooney

https://www.controller.com/listing/for-sale/230504519/1986-mooney-m20k-252tse-piston-single-aircraft

I try this one few week ago and it's dream comparing my 20F  , very more quieter and smooth ride 

 

and 

 

https://www.controller.com/listing/for-sale/234084119/2000-mooney-m20m-bravo-piston-single-aircraft

 

   also we have to look at this one

 

https://www.controller.com/listing/for-sale/236832347/2007-mooney-m20m-gx-bravo-piston-single-aircraft

 

   what is the best valuable Mooney on these 3 , and also how much can import fee cost ?

 

martin

[Fritz1]

A subject of ultimate complexity, the 252 has the best overall airframe / engine balance, the Bravo has sodium filled exhaust valves and oil cooled exhaust valve guides, talk to shops that maintain and overhaul these engines

[slowflyin]

On 7/14/2024 at 11:48 AM, Rick Junkin said:

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 19.8 MB · 3 downloads

Regarding UL, my experience as well.  After a panel upgrade, I was able to remove some Charlie weights as well as the stand by vacuum.   90% of my mission is two up front.   When I have four I leave some fuel behind.    When I fly with my Bride we often fly max range.  I have never been full up with three passengers in any AC and flown max range.   I own a Skylane as well.  Same experience.  

All that being said, the 252 is a fine aircraft.  I'd be proud to own one!

[KLRDMD]

On 7/10/2024 at 9:42 PM, snowman said:

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

Having owned both a K and M model Mooney, if I were to buy one again it would be the K.

[natdm]

9 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

Having owned both a K and M model Mooney, if I were to buy one again it would be the K.

Oh. Elaborate, please!

[KLRDMD]

8 hours ago, natdm said:

Oh. Elaborate, please!

Primarily efficiency. My Bravo would not run LOP so I cruised at 19.4 GPH to keep the T.I.T. and other parameters in line. My 231 ran well LOP, and I cruised most often at 9.5 GPH. The Bravo was 20-25 knots faster on twice the fuel. It didn't hurt that the 231 purchase price was less than half that of the Bravo but that wasn't a top concern.

[snowman]

On 9/6/2024 at 9:41 AM, natdm said:

Oh. Elaborate, please!

what's the +and the -  of both plane oterwise of the cost?

[Fritz1]

Semi religious question, some guys like contis, some guys like lycs, kinda like Beemers versus mercs and Chevy versus Ford, there is no rational answer, the best one is the one you feel most comfortable with, they all have their pros and cons

[Geoff]

On 7/13/2024 at 10:46 PM, 1980Mooney said:

 

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.....

Going 200 knots costs lots of $.  Most 6 cyl turbocharged ~300 hp engines cost this much to have factory rebuilt.

[1980Mooney]

4 hours ago, Geoff said:

Going 200 knots costs lots of $.  Most 6 cyl turbocharged ~300 hp engines cost this much to have factory rebuilt.

So that was back in mid July - $101K for a Factory Rebuilt.  That same Lycoming TIO-540 engine for a Bravo now costs $111K for a Factory Rebuilt.  Up 10% in two (2) months.

 

 

Edited September 11 by 1980Mooney

[slowflyin]

Since we were comparing an Encore to a Bravo, the continental TSIO360 engines aren't cheap either.    90k rebuilt and 100K new for an Encore engine.    Crazy how expensive things have become!

[1980Mooney]

33 minutes ago, slowflyin said:

Since we were comparing an Encore to a Bravo, the continental TSIO360 engines aren't cheap either.    90k rebuilt and 100K new for an Encore engine.    Crazy how expensive things have become!

A New Encore Continental TSIO-360-SB at only $100k seems like a bargain compared to a new Bravo Lycoming TIO-540-AF1B at $175K (75% more).

It seems odd that the Rebuilt Encore Continental is so high at $88K.

All these prices are after providing a usable Core.  Without a Core, the New Lycoming for the Bravo costs $216K !

More and more, when you buy a used GA plane you are paying for Avionics and the Engine/Prop and the rest of the plane is thrown in for free....

[PT20J]

18 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

A New Encore Continental TSIO-360-SB at only $100k seems like a bargain compared to a new Bravo Lycoming TIO-540-AF1B at $175K (75% more).

It seems odd that the Rebuilt Encore Continental is so high at $88K.

All these prices are after providing a usable Core.  Without a Core, the New Lycoming for the Bravo costs $216K !

More and more, when you buy a used GA plane you are paying for Avionics and the Engine/Prop and the rest of the plane is thrown in for free....

Interesting observation. Since the engine is somewhat of a crapshoot, that makes the whole deal pretty risky financially. I wouldn’t want to buy an expensive used airplane unless I had the funds to replace the engine already in reserve.