Pro's / cons - Bravo or 252 looking to buy?

[Jeev]

Hey all-

I have a nice J that is due for a new engine soon and I was thinking this may be a good time to upgrade. I would like a Turbo as I live in Vegas with high DA and have been flying to Denver a lot.

Budget is $150-$180 and I am finding that I can get a nice Bravo or 252 for that money. My question is more about your experiences with either or both aircraft. I know we are talking mid body vs long and Cont vs Lyc but in real life what do you think?

About me: 800hr, 500 in my J, IFR

Mission - Lots of 250-300mi trips from Vegas to cali, many trips from Vegas to Salt lake city, Mammoth ect during ski season, about 8-10 trips a year from Vegas to Denver, and 2-3 trips coast to coast.

I have been doing this in my J and it has been doing a good job but there have been a good amount of times where I would love to have the turbo to either get above the crud or climb out at more than 500 fpm on a hot and or high day.

FIKI would be nice but not a necessity as I probably would not fly when the weather was that bad just use the TKS for escape.

Thanks for your input.

[AndyFromCB]

If you don't mind feeding the engine, a used Bravo has to be the best deal in aviation today. But fuel it will eat. It's a 190knot machine on about 16.5gph in the lower flight levels. It will do 200 easily but at a cost of 4 more gph. I still climb at 500fpm just like your J but I'm also covering the ground at 140knots in climb. Or 1200fpm at 105. Or an insane climb gradient at 85. the climb never really stops or slows down until about 18k. The extra 500lb of weight over a J makes a lot of difference in turbulence. Plus dual batteries, dual alternators.

[gjkirsch]

The Bravo will more than likely be newer than the 252. It is (my opinion) easier to land, climbs better, and is about 15 knots faster all around. It does like fuel. I burn around 19 most of the time and run TAS 170 down low to 205 in the flight levels. My wife sits in the back with the dog, reclines the seat and normally takes a nap. The long body is more comfortable for the rear seat passenger.

Other than fuel burn, the rest of the costs should be comparable. I have not owned a 252 but have owned a couple of 231's and another Bravo before this one. I never seem to spend money on the engines or airframes. Avionics are another story.

[FoxMike]

Jeev,

I would suggest that you find a Bravo and and stick the owner up for a ride. I bought a Bravo in 2003 because it is slightly larger and somewhat more comfortable. This is my 3rd Mooney. I do longer trips than you do so the comfort may not appeal to you, I like the wet heads and all the dual stuff. A friend flies a 231 on my wing a lot. He burns 10.5 while I burn 14.5. I live in Denver and can attest that the M rides a little better in the bumps. It is a great weather airplane.

[Jeev]

Thanks guys - Fox Mike what speeds are you getting at 14.5 gph? I know you can fly high and fast at 19gph but what can you get say in the mid teens at 15gph?

This is the real world info I need. Thanks a ton!

[AndyFromCB]

Jeevs,

15.5gph, 27/2350, 1600TIT, 12,500 hits 175 in my tks Bravo at gross weight. it burns about a gallon more at FL200 with the same settings while doing 190.

You will burn about 13 gallons getting to fl200. You'll cover about 60nm during the climb.

Absolute minimum you want left in your tanks is another 13, about 140nm of range left at that point at 24/2200.

It's a very comfortable 800nm machine for two. 700nm if hard ifr at destination and nbaa rules are followed.

Andy

[FoxMike]

Jeev,

At 15K and 27/2350 (15gph) 72% power the IAS is144K and a TAS of 180K. I have TKS so I don't get anywhere near factory advertised cruise. I suggest you fly one on an over standard day. The M model needs a fair amount of runway. It also is not a good airplane on unpaved surfaces. Also if you get serious about this make sure whatever one you are looking at is not subject to Lycoming SB 569A. Lycoming recently added more crankshaft serial numbers to the list. Exhaust systems are also problematic.

I have put 1100 hrs on the airplane in 9 years and have enjoyed it. The big trip was a lap around the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean last winter about 9000 miles.

[jackn]

I fly a 252/ Encore conversion w/TKS and extended tanks. My mission is across the USA. There is really nothing out there that competes with the 252. It's pretty much a 'go anywhere' plane. I usually fly with the rear seats removed for additional storage. I can fit bikes, skis, etc. If I do get a third passenger, one of the rear seats can be installed quickly. There is plenty of leg room in the back. I cruise at 65%, and I file for 160kts below 10K & 170kts above 10K(it's usually closer to 180 in the high teens)burning 12 gph. TiT will be around 1500. There are many great 252's and Encores for sale now. It's a good time to by either.

[AndyFromCB]

Jeev,

At 15K and 27/2350 (15gph) 72% power the IAS is144K and a TAS of 180K. I have TKS so I don't get anywhere near factory advertised cruise. I suggest you fly one on an over standard day. The M model needs a fair amount of runway. It also is not a good airplane on unpaved surfaces. Also if you get serious about this make sure whatever one you are looking at is not subject to Lycoming SB 569A. Lycoming recently added more crankshaft serial numbers to the list. Exhaust systems are also problematic.

I have put 1100 hrs on the airplane in 9 years and have enjoyed it. The big trip was a lap around the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean last winter about 9000 miles.

Mike,

Actually look at your charts. 180knots at that power setting blows the factory chart by about 10knots which is what I always find bravos doing.

What nobody seems to be able to accomplish is get the speed at advertised fuel burns but as far as the power settings go, the poh actually underestimates by a lot.

Andy

[johnggreen]

Not much to add from what has been posted. Both 252 and Bravo are good, reliable and capable aircraft. Bravo more performance at the price of fuel and 20% more engine reserve. Nothing of value comes free. The extra room of the Bravo makes it bearable, nothing more. The system redundancy of the Bravo to me, makes it a no brainer. If 4 gph is a serious consideration, you can't afford either airplane.

As to speeds, I agree with Andy. My Bravo, with TKS, will beat book by about 6 knots at all power settings and altitudes. In the low teens, I can easily get 175 @ just over 14 gallons.

Jgreen

[AndyFromCB]

Jeev,

I posted this in another forum, but I'll report here again. Here is an honest breakdown of Bravo ownership costs, I arrived at after year and half of ownership, having have rebuilt the plane more or less, other than paint and interior:

My Bravo breaks down to the following, flown 200 hours per year:

Hangar $1500

Insurance $2000

Annual $2500

Maintenance Labor $4000

Subscriptions $1500

Gas/Oil (200 hrs) $25000

FF/Engine Reserves $7500

Parts Reserve $4000

My engine reserve might seem high, but I included R&R costs, plus all the other goodies forward of the firewall. As to parts reserve, there is a lot of them and none of them cheap. Little steering horn was wearing down on my airplane, that set me back $1600. KI256 overhaul was $2500, lasted all of 5 hours, fixed again under warranty. It's little things like that add up to quickly.

[AndyFromCB]

And let me qualify one statement, you can get the published fuel burns at a cost of a new turbo and exhaust transition every 800 hours or so. TIT of 1750 is just too hot. The cylinders won't care because the guides are oil cooled but the exhaust, turbo and wastegate combo will set you back about 12K plus labor for R&R so about 15K so a bit more expensive than 1 to 1.5 extra GPH needed to keep the TIT down below 1600.

LOP is out of the question, the engine will do it at lower power settings but you lose too much speed, like 10 to 15 knots. The plane just surges forward when you move the mixture over to ROP.

Fuel costs notwithstanding, I'd take the Bravo over 252 because that extra 50 or so HP really comes in handy in the mountains.

[carusoam]

Compare to an Ovation 1...

175 kts at 15 gph, 12,000' ROP.

165 kts at 12 gph, 12,000' LOP.

No turbo or 02 required...

If your backseaters get a vote, go with a long body!

Best regards,

-a-

[Jeev]

Thanks a ton guys!!! Doing the calcs on what I "want" to spend I think the bravo is out of my budget just due to fuel burn but DAMN I REALLY WANT ONE!!! Now I have to weigh the benefits of either keeping my J that I has new paint, soon to be new engine, full LED's and squawk free vs a nice 252 that is somewhat unknown and will give me a nice climb and 20kts... hmmmmmmm

Carusoam - I was looking at the O1 because feeding a turbo scares me a little (I like my other money pits, Cars) but a large point of upgrading for me is a "scary" turbo. Thanks for the info

[carusoam]

Jeev,

I know the feeling. I wanted a turbo engine. I priced out an acclaim engine/ cowling to replace my current setup. I just don't NEED one.

Fortunately the government said that I'm unable to do so on my airframe anyway...

-a-

[Parker_Woodruff]

If 4 gph is a serious consideration, you can't afford either airplane.

Actually, it is a consideration - and there's a lot more at stake than just fuel (Which I would argue is closer to 6-8 gph due to my LOP preference). Some people (like myself) save a lot for a nicer airframe. I could afford to buy an M20K or an older M20M. But flying that Bravo as much as I'd want to would be a stretch - a really big stretch. And then I'm staring 20-40% more cash to overhaul the engine.

Those shock discs don't last as long on the Bravo, either.

Jeev - Find yourself a 252 or Encore with the nicest airframe possible.

[AndyFromCB]

Actually, it is a consideration - and there's a lot more at stake than just fuel (Which I would argue is closer to 6-8 gph due to my LOP preference). Some people (like myself) save a lot for a nicer airframe. I could afford to buy an M20K or an older M20M. But flying that Bravo as much as I'd want to would be a stretch - a really big stretch. And then I'm staring 20-40% more cash to overhaul the engine.

Those shock discs don't last as long on the Bravo, either.

Jeev - Find yourself a 252 or Encore with the nicest airframe possible.

Parker,

A 252 hits 190 at FL180 on about 13.5gph, a Bravo hits 190 at FL180 on about 17gph so it is about 4gph more. The engine overhaul on a Bravo is actually about the same cost as TSIO360MB. Mine was 33K, to new parts limits, with new camshaft and cylinders redone at $1200 a pop by Central Cylinder. Would have been 41K with new cylinders but mine only had 1100 hours on them and looked brand new. We did keep the old turbo, mags and fuel pump because they only had 400 hours on them, re-did waste gate and controllers, so a brand new limit overhaul would have been $45K with all new accessories. Just need to find a shop that doesn't charge based on Lycoming price list and the engine is no different than other IO540s work and part wise. And central cylinder does almost all P51 engine overhauls in the country so it's not like it's a small, unknown shop. 2 year, 1000 hour warranty. And TSIO360MB would have been about 41K according to them when I was shopping around. So 45K vs 41K. Not 20 to 40%. I guess I don't know how much the exhaust transition is in the Encore that could make a huge difference. On M20M it's about $5.5K.

I bought the Bravo to meet the climb gradients out of Jackson Hole. A M20K just wouldn't cut it. I like to clear all that terrain with at least 3000feet to spare. I still can do 700fpm at FL180 at 105knots, an Encore is down to about 400fpm if both take off at gross. That extra 50hp makes a ton of difference in the mountains.

Andy

[Parker_Woodruff]

Parker,

A 252 hits 190 at FL180 on about 13.5gph, a Bravo hits 190 at FL180 on about 17gph so it is about 4gph more.

FL190: 188 - 191 KTAS for me on about 12.0 GPH.

The engine overhaul on a Bravo is actually about the same cost as TSIO360MB. Mine was 33K, to new parts limits, with new camshaft and cylinders redone at $1200 a pop by Central Cylinder.

So about 10% higher than what it would take to overhaul my engine at Zephyr.

Just need to find a shop that doesn't charge based on Lycoming price list

This is true...

I bought the Bravo to meet the climb gradients out of Jackson Hole. A M20K just wouldn't cut it. I like to clear all that terrain with at least 3000feet to spare. I still can do 700fpm at FL180 at 105knots, an Encore is down to about 400fpm if both take off at gross. That extra 50hp makes a ton of difference in the mountains.

I easily see 800 FPM thru FL180 on my Encore conversion after taking off with full tanks and just myself at 110-120 KIAS. I imagine that fully loaded I'd still see 500+ FPM...or better if I decreased speed to Vy (95 KIAS at sea level). Note: I do have a 3-blade prop.

Andy

*See my responses in bold. If you can afford the Bravo, then buy it. It is a more capable bird...but the marginal benefits do come at a significant marginal cost.

[AndyFromCB]

Parker,

Thanks for the info. 12GPH is a pipe dream in a Bravo. Even at 24/2200 the things eats about 13 and that gives you about 165knots at FL180. That's my IFR reserve power setting.

5 gallons per hour is a considerable difference, I agree, that's 3000 per year flown at 100 hours. Pays for a lot of hotels.

I never said I could afford my Bravo ;-)

Andy

[Cruiser]

Read Jimmyt Garrison's article in the latest MAPA log. Lots of good info on the K, 252, Bravo etc.