I'm really going to have to study all these numbers again.......IAS gives you CAS which you use to get TAS and then take that and compare it to my personal favorite, GPS speed (same number on my Ipad as on my Aspen as on my Garmin ), with current indicated windspeed at my given altitude.....frigging hey. With all this technology we should find one number and stick with it.

What I would be interested in knowing, is if the Rocket can provide similar NMPG to my NA IO-550, at much faster speeds. I care less about 5 or 10 knots faster. But 30-40 knots faster (200+) would definitely be interesting.

At normal cruise altitudes (e.g. 14,500) I usually see about 168 KTAS (light, just me) on a shade less than 12 gph. Round a little for conservatism and call it 14 NMPG.

200 KTAS at 14 NMPG would require a 14.2gph burn. Even 190 KTAS would be 13.6gph burn.

I don't know if you can find power settings and reasonable altitudes (say under 18,000') to get those numbers in Rocket. But if you could, with nice cool cylinders, I would be interested in learning more.

Yes, I saw that 8.2gph. Do you think that's right? That's 30" x 2280 RPM on a 6-cylinder Continental. Could that possibly be 8.2gph? It seems like that should be at least 11 or 12.

What I would be interested in knowing, is if the Rocket can provide similar NMPG to my NA IO-550, at much faster speeds. I care less about 5 or 10 knots faster. But 30-40 knots faster (200+) would definitely be interesting.

At normal cruise altitudes (e.g. 14,500) I usually see about 168 KTAS (light, just me) on a shade less than 12 gph. Round a little for conservatism and call it 14 NMPG.

200 KTAS at 14 NMPG would require a 14.2gph burn. Even 190 KTAS would be 13.6gph burn.

I don't know if you can find power settings and reasonable altitudes (say under 18,000') to get those numbers in Rocket. But if you could, with nice cool cylinders, I would be interested in learning more.

I agree with this sentiment for the most part. To better normalize the comparisons, the M20J/201 with an IO-550 conversion is a "Missile" and the M20K/231/252 with a TSIO-520 conversion is a "Rocket." (Both are great conversions...well engineered and supported, even almost 20 years after they were pulled from the market.) So the Missile should be compared with non-turbo Bonanzas, and the Rocket with turbo or TN Bonanzas.

I've got a few hours in both conversions...and they will haul the groceries! Quite a step up from my humble and very efficient 200 HP M20J. I can't speak to the power settings and corresponding fuel flows definitively yet, but I recall 175-180 KTAS in the Missile <10k' on ~12-13 GPH LOP. It's been a year since I flew one, though. The Rocket can do better, especially at O2 altitudes, but there is a TIT limitation of 1650 I believe, which limits how hard you can run it, even LOP. The Rocket is less efficient than the Missile due to the low compression pistons, so it won't be "better" unless going up high.

The upside to either plane is the value in today's market. Very nice Rockets can be had at 150k or less right now, sometimes substantially less, and nice Missiles can be 120k or less. These will typically be 80s or 90s airframes as well. Lots of capability and speed, and hard to beat unless you really need the greater cabin space of an A36.

V-tails and the M20 were two of the finest this country has built back when we still valued top notch r&d and manufacturing.

We built real airplanes then, outta real metal, with real pilots.......not this foo foo plastic stuff with parachutes

I agree with this sentiment for the most part. To better normalize the comparisons, the M20J/201 with an IO-550 conversion is a "Missile" and the M20K/231/252 with a TSIO-520 conversion is a "Rocket." (Both are great conversions...well engineered and supported, even almost 20 years after they were pulled from the market.) So the Missile should be compared with non-turbo Bonanzas, and the Rocket with turbo or TN Bonanzas.

I've got a few hours in both conversions...and they will haul the groceries! Quite a step up from my humble and very efficient 200 HP M20J. I can't speak to the power settings and corresponding fuel flows definitively yet, but I recall 175-180 KTAS in the Missile <10k' on ~12-13 GPH LOP. It's been a year since I flew one, though. The Rocket can do better, especially at O2 altitudes, but there is a TIT limitation of 1650 I believe, which limits how hard you can run it, even LOP. The Rocket is less efficient than the Missile due to the low compression pistons, so it won't be "better" unless going up high.

The upside to either plane is the value in today's market. Very nice Rockets can be had at 150k or less right now, sometimes substantially less, and nice Missiles can be 120k or less. These will typically be 80s or 90s airframes as well. Lots of capability and speed, and hard to beat unless you really need the greater cabin space of an A36.

The 252 is a great plane, and even better is the Encore version, which was the last of the breed in '97-98. 252's can be upgraded fairly reasonably to the Encore configuration which gets +10 HP and +230 lb GW increase, so the modest useful load of the 252 becomes quite practical with the Encore configuration. A friend of mine used to operate his 252-->Encore in the 17k-18k range at ~190-195 knots on <12 GPH. Absolutely phenomenal unless you need more seats. 1000 lb useful load at that fuel burn offers a lot of flexibility in terms of butts, bags, and fuel.

The Rocket still offers the most bang-for-the-buck if you can live with the fuel burn. Faster than the Bravo and Acclaim at far less money.

I think it's fair to estimate that a Mooney is 5-10 knots faster than a equivalently powered V tail. Where the Mooney has a bigger performance advantage is climb. A rocket probably weighs 500lbs less than a v35. That means an additional 500+fpm.

I purchased 252SJ 5 years ago when I had 200 hrs and a fresh Instrument ticket. My mission profile was somewhat similar to that described, regularly flying to Eastern Washington and SoCal. My longest non-stop was 800nm (KSCK to KCYS) at FL220 and a 50 kt tailwind. Have always landed with 60 min or more reserve. Truth is my bladder won't handle much more anyway. If you're looking for 1000 miles you'll need LR tanks (and LR bladder) or gale-force tailwinds, and risk arriving on fumes. Not wise to tempt fate early in your ownership career.

Cruising in the flight levels at 200 kts and 13.5 gph is unique. The TSIO360MB is very easy to operate thanks to intercooling, automatic wastegate and highly efficient cowl flaps.

Aircraft design is always about trade offs, however. The 252 generates its remarkable efficiency so long as the load is light. Traveling frequently in the West has introduced me to occasional icing conditions, and the aerodynamic effects thereof. I have concluded that Ice + mountains are best avoided, particularly when you only have 200 hp available for escape. The 252 is a remarkably capable aircraft, but it can get you into situations you have no business being in if you're not careful.

Stay thirsty my friends.