M20K Encore - Purchase advice & Cockpit feel for tall pilot

[Schllc]

19 hours ago, Z W said:

Also, the turbo on the TSIO-360-MB is somewhat rare and therefore expensive

To be fair, they are saying this about all the turbos, maybe the exception is the tsio550 on the cirrus. 
apparently no one is making new housing castings for any of them which creates a supply shortage. 
But the notion that these things are 14k+ is predatory and likely a function of the acquisitions by VC. In other words, it is intentional. 
Same goes for the band clamps. 
Neither of these parts are complicated nor expensive to make.  They have a captive market and they are going to see how hard they can screw us before we stop buying. 

[Z W]

No argument from me there. The turbo looks an awful lot like the one on my F-150, but even an overhauled aircraft turbo costs more than the entire motor for the truck.

I bought a new V-band clamp this year too, $830.54 from Airpower, and was happy to be able to pay for it instead of being grounded. Similar ones are $50 on McMaster-Carr.

Fixing those problems are above my pay grade and beyond the scope of this thread. Naturally aspirated parts aren't doing any better. I replaced a bunch of those too. It was an expensive year, maintenance-wise. But I got to fly a pretty good amount of hours in comfort and safety, and see and experience things as only GA can let you do. Still worth it, no matter what you're flying.

[Yetti]

8 hours ago, MartinN3 said:

You are 6'9" and fit in an F?? I'm feeling a lot more comfortable knowing that now. Thanks for your insight. The market in Europe is small, only one Acclaim on the market at the moment - I'll see how it goes. I'm currently juggling a few models 252/Encore/Ovation based on suggestions and my personal preferences.

The list of things I don't fit in is pretty long.   Most all Piper products.   Early Bonanzas.   I was looking at a citation cockpit and decided I might go in, but getting back out would be pretty hard.    The Long Body does seem a bit roomier but my head seems closer to the ceiling.    There is some data to drill a couple extra holes in the seat rail, but I doubt you will need that. 

Also it seems when people of less stature have their seats redone, they will add some foam. 

[MartinN3]

15 hours ago, Aaviationist said:

We’re having a hard time with parts here, I can’t imagine trying to get parts in Croatia. 
 

also, you might fit and it might be tight. I tried and did not fit. Not everyone is built the same. Ignore the comments about Al Mooney being 10’13 or whatever. He was also like, 150lbs. 

That is also another aspect I've regarded in terms of maintaining the aircraft. I'm planning on doing as much research as I possibly can (talking to you guys on the forum, speaking to aircraft engineers etc) to determine what parts most commonly wear. I'd rather "mass" order spares and have them on shelf just incase any expected/unexpected scenarios come up. I haven't dug so far as to determine what parts fail, when, but have Mooney discontinued certain items for their aircraft?  Are there aftermarket options available? 

[MartinN3]

9 hours ago, Z W said:

I was just reviewing my year of airplane expenses which included a turbo overhaul. The old one made it to 1,400 hours before it had issues. They were major issues and essentially all of the parts had to be replaced with serviceable overhauled ones from Main Turbo in California. The cost was $13,294.98 in 2025, so the numbers posted here are maybe optimistic. I was told it would have been less if my housings had been re-usable, so maybe $5-6k is more typical, unless you get unlucky. Also, the turbo on the TSIO-360-MB is somewhat rare and therefore expensive. Next time I'll send it in at 1,000 hours for preventative overhaul. If you replace the bearings before they wear out and start allowing other parts to rub on each other it's much cheaper.

That being said, I'd do it again and wouldn't want to go back to naturally aspirated single engine piston flight. The turbo has made many of my flights safer, more comfortable, and faster. In the case of mountain flying, it's even made a few possible that otherwise would not have been. 

I value the insight and will definitely aim to keep a preventative approach to maintenance. I've been exploring the 252 mainly and have that as my primary option - the Ovation 2/3's are a very close second. I'm starting to organise the 2026 January calendar and have lined up a list of inspections, most are 252's, some ovations and some 231's just to round out my understanding of the platform.

In the meantime, while I'm looking for the right aircraft, my goal is to understand the Mooney fleet as deeply as possible (thanks to @LANCECASPER for creating the thread on the history of Mooney); not just at the model level but in terms of systems, wear patterns, common failure points and long term ownership realities. I'm planning to owner-operate and once I complete my aircraft engineering license, be actively involved in maintaining my own aircraft under an approved organisation. Long term, I'd like to keep these aircraft flying properly and be of value to the community, so insights like the one you (and every else) have shared are genuinely appreciated.

[MartinN3]

8 hours ago, Yetti said:

The list of things I don't fit in is pretty long.   Most all Piper products.   Early Bonanzas.   I was looking at a citation cockpit and decided I might go in, but getting back out would be pretty hard.    The Long Body does seem a bit roomier but my head seems closer to the ceiling.    There is some data to drill a couple extra holes in the seat rail, but I doubt you will need that. 

Also it seems when people of less stature have their seats redone, they will add some foam. 

Noted. The true test of me fitting will be when I go forth and inspect a few examples this month. I shall see how 6'3" @ 210lbs cocoons inside. Super excited!

[Fly Boomer]

2 hours ago, MartinN3 said:

Noted. The true test of me fitting will be when I go forth and inspect a few examples this month. I shall see how 6'3" @ 210lbs cocoons inside. Super excited!

Ask the owner(s) to demonstrate their techniques for ingress and egress.  I find that, once in, I have plenty of room.  Getting in and out is more difficult for me.  For me, this is just a footnote — it didn’t and wouldn’t affect my choice of Mooney.  There are plenty of airplanes I can’t get into or out of at all these days.

[MartinN3]

2 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

Ask the owner(s) to demonstrate their techniques for ingress and egress.  I find that, once in, I have plenty of room.  Getting in and out is more difficult for me.  For me, this is just a footnote — it didn’t and wouldn’t affect my choice of Mooney.  There are plenty of airplanes I can’t get into or out of at all these days.

True that is a fair point - will run the question by some of the owners lol. I just wanted to make sure I'll atleast be comfortable in the aircraft seeing as i'll be flying it several times a month. Once I find a good ingress and egress method I'll post it here, you best believe.

[kortopates]

Noted. The true test of me fitting will be when I go forth and inspect a few examples this month. I shall see how 6'3" @ 210lbs cocoons inside. Super excited!

Just stick to Mooney’s that have articulating front seats and you won’t have any problems. i believe they are standard on the 252’s and long bodies but not earlier K’s.

I will add that more important than the bit higher cost of operating a turbo, which doesn’t make up a significant portion of my operating expenses, Turbo really require a more mechanically knowledgeable pilot to operate safely. Just compare the emergency procedures of one compared to a normally aspirated one. IMO they need pilots that are willing to really get to know there systems and emergency procedures. Basics such as why we have both low and high boost pumps and their purpose are not widely understood. As an IA and CFI i try to make sure all the Mooney systems and procedures are well understood during transition training but its like drinking from a fire hose and will take much longer time than the few days spent on transition training to really learn their systems.
We just have to hope a new pilot isn’t tested too early in their ownership. Such risk can be greatly reduced IMO by only buying a plane that has been flying regularly rather than one that has been sitting or a project plane.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Steve Dawson]

Great information on this post. 

[dkkim73]

26 minutes ago, kortopates said:

I will add that more important than the bit higher cost of operating a turbo, which doesn’t make up a significant portion of my operating expenses, Turbo really require a more mechanically knowledgeable pilot to operate safely. Just compare the emergency procedures of one compared to a normally aspirated one. IMO they need pilots that are willing to really get to know there systems and emergency procedures. Basics such as why we have both low and high boost pumps and their purpose are not widely understood. As an IA and CFI i try to make sure all the Mooney systems and procedures are well understood during transition training but its like drinking from a fire hose and will take much longer time than the few days spent on transition training to really learn their systems.
We just have to hope a new pilot isn’t tested too early in their ownership. Such risk can be greatly reduced IMO by only buying a plane that has been flying regularly rather than one that has been sitting or a project plane.

I had been concerned about this, having had only a few hrs of turbo experience beforehand. 

I did the Advanced Pilot Seminars online engine management course (Deakin et al) which was several hours, read some mooneyspace and Mike Busch, and it all came together fairly quickly and intuitively. I agree it's bad if you can't or won't learn, but it's sensible and straightforward if you have a good engine monitor. It actually makes some phases easier (climb full forward, set MP in cruise instead of learningy to react to it, etc).

Overall I find the modern turbo to be easier to plan for and fly. 

Tricky part for me was the low end for the big Continental and getting the fuel setting and leaning right near idle, responsiveness on a go around etc. But that's not the turbo, and all engines have finicky regimes. 

Of course Paul has forgot more than I know, so perhaps his caution should be applied a priori. Martin sounds like a pretty detail oriented person, though. 

On other topics: 

- my wife is taller and had ceiling clearance issues with my older bulky headset (battery pack for lip light on top band, big padded band etc). Solved with a light in ear headset. But the seat is probably cranked up more vertical than it was designed. Still, overall height not an issue for many people I know. Legroom not an issue. I tried to wiggle around around and get something from the backseat floor the other day. I admit it's tight in some ways. But it's very ergonomic. Sports car is a good analogy. 

- turbo invaluable for mountain flying. Was just looking at a map of Croatia. Your routes should be great fun and learning to fly. Can't imagine it won't give you flexibility and time back. 

- how much of a project do you want vs something ready to go? An Acclaim with FIKI would be turnkey. Ask me how I know

- avionics an issue? Better avionics with big screen and modern UX might help with busy airspaces (I don't have a sense of your background) 

You seem very thoughtful and interested. Welcome aboard!

 

[Yetti]

My entry is this.

Stand on wing facing the door.  Knees on passenger seat, then change to a seated position and swing legs around into pilot floorboard.   Scooch butt across to pilot seat.

Exit.

Swing legs around to door, then scooch over and go out between the door and leading edge of wing.   Would not try this with short legs. 

There is no graceful way for the passenger to exit a mooney.   It is some weird hot dog roll out onto the wing.

 

[dkkim73]

13 minutes ago, Yetti said:

There is no graceful way for the passenger to exit a mooney.   It is some weird hot dog roll out onto the wing.

If you're shorter you can stand on your knees on the seat and then put the forward foot on the strip, then stand up. 

[exM20K]

8 hours ago, MartinN3 said:

in terms of systems, wear patterns, common failure points and long term ownership realities

In my experience of near 5000 hours and 30 years of Mooney ownership & operation, maintenance issues and expense are mostly firewall-forward.  With all the precision that my memory and a crayon can muster, it’s:

85% engine, prop, and engine accessories

10% avionics and autopilot

5% airframe

The engine parts and accessories are (mostly) commonly used across other manufacturers.

The avionics are the same.

So, too, are many of the airframe parts (eg: TKS.)

The only “Mooney” parts I recall buying were some MLG rods that got bent via a maintenance-induced misrigging and a gear motor and spring. If you’re going to hoard any airframe parts, I’d focus first on landing gear stuff.

-dan

 

[Fix]

On 12/31/2025 at 5:41 PM, Aaviationist said:

We’re having a hard time with parts here, I can’t imagine trying to get parts in Croatia. 

Not harder to get parts here than USA.
UPS or FedEx 1-2 days express if I need something to Europe.
 

[MartinN3]

2 hours ago, kortopates said:

Just stick to Mooney’s that have articulating front seats and you won’t have any problems. i believe they are standard on the 252’s and long bodies but not earlier K’s.

I will add that more important than the bit higher cost of operating a turbo, which doesn’t make up a significant portion of my operating expenses, Turbo really require a more mechanically knowledgeable pilot to operate safely. Just compare the emergency procedures of one compared to a normally aspirated one. IMO they need pilots that are willing to really get to know there systems and emergency procedures. Basics such as why we have both low and high boost pumps and their purpose are not widely understood. As an IA and CFI i try to make sure all the Mooney systems and procedures are well understood during transition training but its like drinking from a fire hose and will take much longer time than the few days spent on transition training to really learn their systems.
We just have to hope a new pilot isn’t tested too early in their ownership. Such risk can be greatly reduced IMO by only buying a plane that has been flying regularly rather than one that has been sitting or a project plane.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's very solid advice, and I agree with you completely. I will note the articulating seats also! 

I am 100% aligned on the turbo side too; I don't see it as "just more performance". At the end of the day it's an extremely vital part of the engine that probably needs more care and professional use than the rest. Inherently, that's what actually attracts me to the K-models more. I like the complexity that comes with a higher climb rate, higher alt and higher speed. 

I'm deliberately taking a long runway with with and trying to understand the systems, failure modes, and why things are designed the way they are (maybe it's my inner aircraft engineer coming out). I've taken onboard the advice from every reply to this thread and have begun to build my knowledge surrounding these masterpieces - even the low/high boost pump example you gave is exactly the kind of detail I want to be aware of before ownership. Heck I'm all for taking the leap and buying the plane but I still very much value understand how it works and the further why it works. Prior planning prevents poor performance right?

Really appreciate you taking the time to write your comment!!

[MartinN3]

1 hour ago, dkkim73 said:

I had been concerned about this, having had only a few hrs of turbo experience beforehand. 

I did the Advanced Pilot Seminars online engine management course (Deakin et al) which was several hours, read some mooneyspace and Mike Busch, and it all came together fairly quickly and intuitively. I agree it's bad if you can't or won't learn, but it's sensible and straightforward if you have a good engine monitor. It actually makes some phases easier (climb full forward, set MP in cruise instead of learningy to react to it, etc).

Overall I find the modern turbo to be easier to plan for and fly. 

Tricky part for me was the low end for the big Continental and getting the fuel setting and leaning right near idle, responsiveness on a go around etc. But that's not the turbo, and all engines have finicky regimes. 

Of course Paul has forgot more than I know, so perhaps his caution should be applied a priori. Martin sounds like a pretty detail oriented person, though. 

On other topics: 

- my wife is taller and had ceiling clearance issues with my older bulky headset (battery pack for lip light on top band, big padded band etc). Solved with a light in ear headset. But the seat is probably cranked up more vertical than it was designed. Still, overall height not an issue for many people I know. Legroom not an issue. I tried to wiggle around around and get something from the backseat floor the other day. I admit it's tight in some ways. But it's very ergonomic. Sports car is a good analogy. 

- turbo invaluable for mountain flying. Was just looking at a map of Croatia. Your routes should be great fun and learning to fly. Can't imagine it won't give you flexibility and time back. 

- how much of a project do you want vs something ready to go? An Acclaim with FIKI would be turnkey. Ask me how I know

- avionics an issue? Better avionics with big screen and modern UX might help with busy airspaces (I don't have a sense of your background) 

You seem very thoughtful and interested. Welcome aboard!

 

Thankyou for also sharing your insight!!

I 100% agree with the engine monitor and thankfully most of the Mooney's for sale do come with a decent setup. It will prove crucial for the climbs and descents especially in Croatia. 

Your point about the low end behaviour of the Continental is interesting and honestly one of the areas I want to understand further in depth (will do some research). After reading what you described in got me question on your aircraft, how does it feel in a real go around scenario? Any lag or quirks you had to adapt to, or is it more about technique and anticipation?

And yes, turbo + mountains + the Balkans is exactly my mission, so the need for some flexibility with regard to faster climb and high cruise levels will be needed.  I'm looking for something turnkey, something that flies right away (for a later stage I'll buy a proper project C or J and do a full rebuild) it'll give me the chance to completely understand the systems.

Thanks again for the insight and the warm welcome – I really enjoy hearing about unique ownership experiences and ultimately adding to my knowledge.

[MartinN3]

1 hour ago, Yetti said:

My entry is this.

Stand on wing facing the door.  Knees on passenger seat, then change to a seated position and swing legs around into pilot floorboard.   Scooch butt across to pilot seat.

Exit.

Swing legs around to door, then scooch over and go out between the door and leading edge of wing.   Would not try this with short legs. 

There is no graceful way for the passenger to exit a mooney.   It is some weird hot dog roll out onto the wing.

 

All part of the uniqueness. I'm a big advocate for the "hot dog roll out" - have done that on so many types, albeit the C206.

[MartinN3]

54 minutes ago, exM20K said:

In my experience of near 5000 hours and 30 years of Mooney ownership & operation, maintenance issues and expense are mostly firewall-forward.  With all the precision that my memory and a crayon can muster, it’s:

85% engine, prop, and engine accessories

10% avionics and autopilot

5% airframe

The engine parts and accessories are (mostly) commonly used across other manufacturers.

The avionics are the same.

So, too, are many of the airframe parts (eg: TKS.)

The only “Mooney” parts I recall buying were some MLG rods that got bent via a maintenance-induced misrigging and a gear motor and spring. If you’re going to hoard any airframe parts, I’d focus first on landing gear stuff.

-dan

 

This is super valuable insight given your level of experience. I really respect that.

Your breakdown is actually quite reassuring to read. It confirms what i've been gradually piecing together - that being,  most of the maintenance is typically engine bay located. I'm glad to know that they're robust rockets and honestly, in all my research I haven't found anything or anyone mentioning design faults, airframe issues or anything major. Definitely a tick of approval from me.

In regards to the parts, I wont' hoard so much as wipe the parts off the market, rather I'd keep a select few spares on shelf. I understand parts are scarce so having the odd common failure items on hand will save me in the long run. I will definitely keep landing gear components in mind and research more into that area. 

Really appreciate you sharing and giving me a breakdown. Thanks heaps!!

[MartinN3]

32 minutes ago, Fix said:

Not harder to get parts here than USA.
UPS or FedEx 1-2 days express if I need something to Europe.
 

There's not much of a Euro based supplier/distributor is there?

[NickG]

On 12/31/2025 at 8:41 AM, Aaviationist said:

We’re having a hard time with parts here, I can’t imagine trying to get parts in Croatia. 
 

also, you might fit and it might be tight. I tried and did not fit. Not everyone is built the same. Ignore the comments about Al Mooney being 10’13 or whatever. He was also like, 150lbs. 

Yes, you’re right. Al Mooney was 12’ 9” and flew wearing a top hat while smoking a clay pipe. And he fit in Mooney Mite!

[dkkim73]

13 minutes ago, NickG said:

Yes, you’re right. Al Mooney was 12’ 9” and flew wearing a top hat while smoking a clay pipe. And he fit in Mooney Mite!

It's important to review authoritative documentary material on this: 

 

[NickG]

7 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

Ask the owner(s) to demonstrate their techniques for ingress and egress.  I find that, once in, I have plenty of room.  Getting in and out is more difficult for me.  For me, this is just a footnote — it didn’t and wouldn’t affect my choice of Mooney.  There are plenty of airplanes I can’t get into or out of at all these days.

I’m 6’ and 270. I’m not “narrow” by any definition of the word. I get in and out of my Ovation with no issues whatsoever. That said, I have developed a unique “fat man roll” technique to ingress and egress that involves sort of rolling over the right seat on the way. Whatever works! My Ovation is supremely comfortable when I’m in. Love it!

Meantime, I’ll chime in on the Turbo discussion (as I don’t own one and therefore I’m uniquely qualified to know everything). I love my Ovation because it gives me”turbo like” performance. Especially with the 310HP STC in place. For 90% of my flying I wouldn’t want anything else. However, I take the long way to Denver (HND - APA) via the southern route because I’m not flying over the Rockies , which I am loathe to do regardless. I climb well up to about 18k and get good TAS in the 172-175 KTAS range on 11 GPH or so at that altitude. So, it works well for my mission, but it’s NOT a turbo. If my mission has me routinely departing high DA or routinely flying over large, high mountain ranges, a turbo would be great. 

For my usual mission of HND to CXO, HND to EUG etc I’m fine with NA. Yes, it would be nice to cruise at 20k with a big tailwind and have the option of 65-70% power but the issue is that when I come back the other way, headwinds will prevail and I’ll want to cruise lower and at the lower altitudes, my O3 shines. So, like everything, a trade off.

That said, my next bird will likely be a turbo - either an Encore or Acclaim S. As for the extra costs for a turbo, yes, its an engine with more bits and pieces so it will be nominally more expensive but  labor is the single largest maintenance cost regardless and that hourly rate is the same regardless of Turbo or NA.

If you think your mission would be better completed with a turbo, get one! You won’t regret it. Generally, people who buy NA and find out its not quite the right choice will wish for a turbo, but people who by turbos and find out they probably didn't need one are unlikely to wish for a NA.

Regardless, you’ll love whatever Mooney you choose! IMO Acclaim S and Encore are 2 of the best GA birds out there (along with O, of course!).

[dkkim73]

38 minutes ago, MartinN3 said:

Your point about the low end behaviour of the Continental is interesting and honestly one of the areas I want to understand further in depth (will do some research). After reading what you described in got me question on your aircraft, how does it feel in a real go around scenario? Any lag or quirks you had to adapt to, or is it more about technique and anticipation?

This was my experience, though it did not surprise some of the knowledgeable people I asked. 

Early on I would go full rich and run at low power for minutes in the descent and approach to landing (the plane is slick and holds on to energy, hence the speed brakes, but you learn to plan ahead and it's a feature later on as you can come blistering in at 200KTAS for not much fuel until near the IAF). Anyhow, it would be low power and rich for several minutes coming in for landing and then I would goose it after a bounce and it was quiet for longer than I liked. The net assessment is that it was just too full of fuel. 

Now I just go comfortably Rich of Peak in the descent (earlier or later depending on how cold it is outside, to keep cylinder temps up a bit) and run a depliberate ROP (but not full rich) setting based on power/TIT or empirically around 1450F TIT during the approach or maneuvering phases and only go full rich on roll-out. The throttle is adequately responsive in this scenario if I need to finesse it in ground effect or go around. The TSIO-550G seems to favor adding power more gradually in this regime, and part-throttle is plenty to stop descending, so I go throttle-mix-throttle if I am truly going around. 

Sounds more complicated than it is. And I am not a CFI and may not be describing it in its exact essentials. But you can learn all of this quickly. 

Not sure if this applies to the slightly smaller Continentals, though I think there are conceptual commonalities in the injection systems. 

Above very low power the engine is entirely intuitive in response as most are. The engine "flows" well. 

Continental runs better LOP on the average than Lycoming based on PIREPs here, which is a huge plus for me (efficiency difference is significant, I was looking at 208KTAS at 23ishgph vs 195KTAS at 17-18ishgph a few days ago... [from memory], less cylinder stress, etc). Lycoming has other advantages (different valve problems). It is a broader Ford-v-Chevy decision that is not Mooney-specific. There are capabilities resulting from the net match up (there is a chart of different Mooney models that reflects engine + some airframe specifics). E.g. climb rate and top speeds higher in the Acclaim. That said many very knowledgeable people consciously choose the Bravo for engine reasons. 

Hope this is not too much of a detour for your original set of questions. 

D

[Ragsf15e]

26 minutes ago, dkkim73 said:

This was my experience, though it did not surprise some of the knowledgeable people I asked. 

Early on I would go full rich and run at low power for minutes in the descent and approach to landing (the plane is slick and holds on to energy, hence the speed brakes, but you learn to plan ahead and it's a feature later on as you can come blistering in at 200KTAS for not much fuel until near the IAF). Anyhow, it would be low power and rich for several minutes coming in for landing and then I would goose it after a bounce and it was quiet for longer than I liked. The net assessment is that it was just too full of fuel. 

Now I just go comfortably Rich of Peak in the descent (earlier or later depending on how cold it is outside, to keep cylinder temps up a bit) and run a depliberate ROP (but not full rich) setting based on power/TIT or empirically around 1450F TIT during the approach or maneuvering phases and only go full rich on roll-out. The throttle is adequately responsive in this scenario if I need to finesse it in ground effect or go around. The TSIO-550G seems to favor adding power more gradually in this regime, and part-throttle is plenty to stop descending, so I go throttle-mix-throttle if I am truly going around. 

Sounds more complicated than it is. And I am not a CFI and may not be describing it in its exact essentials. But you can learn all of this quickly. 

Not sure if this applies to the slightly smaller Continentals, though I think there are conceptual commonalities in the injection systems. 

Above very low power the engine is entirely intuitive in response as most are. The engine "flows" well. 

Continental runs better LOP on the average than Lycoming based on PIREPs here, which is a huge plus for me (efficiency difference is significant, I was looking at 208KTAS at 23ishgph vs 195KTAS at 17-18ishgph a few days ago... [from memory], less cylinder stress, etc). Lycoming has other advantages (different valve problems). It is a broader Ford-v-Chevy decision that is not Mooney-specific. There are capabilities resulting from the net match up (there is a chart of different Mooney models that reflects engine + some airframe specifics). E.g. climb rate and top speeds higher in the Acclaim. That said many very knowledgeable people consciously choose the Bravo for engine reasons. 

Hope this is not too much of a detour for your original set of questions. 

D

My “baby” TSIO-360mb behaves like that as well if you go full rich at idle on final.  I prefer having the knobs set up for go around as much as possible (full rpm, full rich), however the engine prefers doing it the way you described.  Just like my wife, the engine won and I’ve been practicing my throttle, mixture, throttle technique for a go around.  As you said, 1/2 to 3/4 power is enough initially and unlikely to hurt anything.