Schllc

Flew from Nashville TN to Driggs ID today and I saw something I’ve never experienced before. I was flying at 16,000, almost the entire time. I was flying LOP and all was well with one curious thing happening almost cyclically. My MP was 29”, fuel flow was relatively stable at 16.9-17.1 gph and the TIT was stable, but my cht’s would cycle from 212 knts to low 190,s, and the hot cylinder #5, would go from 355-375. Not rapidly, but continuously drifting back and forth between the two extremes. Has anyone ever experienced this, or have an explanation? I have never flown over this terrain before and we had headwinds from 20-50+ knots right on the nose. I know there were some thermals at times, and I would sometimes see 10deg pitch up attitude with no real change in altitude. it could just be inexperience on my part but was hoping for an explanation.

I would suggest you accumulate all the requirements to take the exam before you go to the course. this way you can focus on the things you need to know for the exam and the rest will be rote. most of the accelerated schools require this anyway. the checkride for ifr was much easier for me than the ppl because I had accumulated about 150 approaches and close to 100 hours with safety pilots and instructors. I personally wanted to be prepared to actually fly imc approaches and the unintended consequence was that the exam was much less stressful. I won’t say it was easy, I was just much more prepared.

That’s a winning suggestion. Will send logs. That will be the best couple hundred bucks I could ever spend.

Aside from the typical and obvious things in logs like damage history or lapsed annuals, are there any things unique to bravos that should be scrutinized?

If you know of one that is for sale for 100k I’d probably add it to the list. I haven’t seen one in that price range yet. i have several hundred hours in ovations as well, and agree, it’s an excellent platform, but they cost more than I plan to spend knowing what I’ll put into it after purchase.

I have about 600 hours in mooneys, the vast majority in g1000 ovations and acclaims, and the rest in a k. I have never flown, or even flown in a bravo. before I bought my first ovation I was bombarded by an inordinate amount of “hangar talk” from everyone I told my intentions to, about mooneys being dangerous, hard to fly, hard to land, slippery etc. I didn’t really know this was inaccurate, but knew I loved the way they looked, and wanted the speed for my mission. five years later I now know the “hangar talk’, was all from people who heard something from someone who knew someone, and not from anyone who had any real experience. I currently own a very late model acclaim and want to transition to a twin, but do not want to sell my new plane until I have located, and configured to my liking, a more modestly priced older model. I have narrowed this down to a J or a Bravo, and I’m leaning towards the Bravo, primarily because I fear I will be disappointed by the performance and handling of a 200hp engine when I am so accustomed to the big continentals. (Yes, I realize the radically different planes these two selections are) i will probably put a glass panel, and a modern autopilot, I just want to find good paint, good engine and good history, the rest I am willing to bring to my standard. i am also ok to a point, with having a little more in it than it’s worth, if it’s safe, and exactly what I want. i currently have my eye on a few that are late 80’s early 90’s, these selections are mostly because I can get them in a price range that allows me to upgrade without spending 300k. i watch the market and I see that bravos really seem to languish, and am really interested to know the real reason, not the anecdotal, “hangar talk” reasons. if there is anyone in south florida that has one, I’d be happy to trade a flight in my ultra for one in your bravo!

My ultra was painted at aerosmith in 2019. I would not return there.

In a long body ovation I found 15.5gph to be a flat rate fuel burn to plan with. climb more or less negated by descent. In the long body acclaim, I plan for 17.5 generally but at full gross I plan for 16.5. In my experience I have found that the TN mooney’s can be flown at numbers almost identical to the NA engines if desired. I’ve owned two ovations and two acclaims and I am not speaking anecdotally. I have also flown identical routes for years in both models and I am completely comfortable with my experience/assessment. lastly, from everything I have read about mooney’s it seems the limit on the UL is the gear, not the airframe/airfoil. I participated in a ferry flight of an O3 that was close to 600# Over gross and you could barely tell the difference in any phase of flight. Even take off roll was barely affected. let’s hope someone eventually figures out a fix for the gear for us!

I have a family of four, myself and three ladies, all around the 100# except me 170# with the dog and minimal bags I can still take on 55 gallons legally in an acclaim with AC, which is easily 2.5-3 hours with reserves. this is about the bathroom time limit for us anyway. room has never really been a problem for us in a long body.

Is there a difference in the door of a post K model or is it just those models that have an stc?

So, is it for sale?

the acclaim cannot fly the advertised speeds for any period of time. Climb is a little more than half of what a turboprop would do. It’s not practical for most, I admit that but for a commuter of 3-4 hours some over water, it is certainly not impractical. The acclaim reduces my mission by 30+ minutes on average. That’s worth 3gph more to me than an ovation. It would be worth another 5-8 to be another 30 min faster and behind a turbine instead of a piston. its noise, safety, speed, dependability, tbo, fuel availability etc. Sure, its more money but nothing in ga is rational or cheap. all that being said, it would take someone like Mike Patey to make this fantasy come to life.

Sure, for a million more. Btw, I have time in a TBM and a Meridian. The TBM, is an incredible machine and in a completely different class than the meridian. I would think that the problem with all the turboprop non pressurized conversions isn’t just the cost. Its the useful load and fuel capacity.

With the rolls Royce engine the bonanza uses, which is temperature limited, vs torque so the ceiling is about 23k, it would make an excellent candidate for a long body. With Monroy tanks, it would hold more fuel than the bonanza, and the weight savings of the turbine would cancel most of the add for fuel. if the bonanza can do 220, the Mooney should do 250. With 130 gallons at 22gph that’s four hours with reserves, about an hour longer than the bonanza. the market is small, but I Suspect more Mooney guys would be interested than bonanza guys. after all, they already decided to go slow once... I agree that pressurization would be a game changer, but most mooneys are flying in the FL already, and pressurizing an airframe is not an stc. It’s a whole new concept. But, adding 20-50 knots and the safety of a turbine would make the most sense for the continuity of mooneys mission. Go Fast! I would think to be viable it would have to be all in under 200k to even be marketable, and even then only on a long or mid body.

I can tell you from personal experience that any warranty on an airplane is grossly overrated. I would go as far to say it wouldn't be a factor for me in buying a plane again at all. if the FAA wasn’t such a messed up anachronism there may be a real wave of innovation. In my humble opinion, the reality is that aside from the ballistic parachute nothing made today outperforms the Mooney for speed and efficiency, or the bonanza for speed with payload. it’s easy to convince oneself that new is better, but after you fly for a while you realize that isn’t axiomatic in aviation. Cirrus’s accomplishment isn’t a better plane, it’s better marketing, and a financing machine that makes it easy to own. Innovation in aerodynamics doesn’t happen in leaps and bounds and thanks to the FAA, it pretty much barely happens at all in GA. Mooney has lost its shot to compete in the modern market of throwaway goods, and buying predicated on monthly payments. Good marketing and advertising works, no doubt about it, and selling the caps system as a panacea was effective. But any objective pilot can’t argue the pros of a mooney. That doesn’t mean it’s the best plane for everyone, but their attributes and capability is clearly established. I’ve got about 20 hours in an SR20 and SR22, and while I’m obviously biased, I was very underwhelmed. I didn’t really enjoy flying the cirrus, I think most of it was the side yoke, but it also just felt cheap if that is relatable.

Mine was a pretty reluctant flier in the beginning. made statements like “I won’t fly with you for two years”. i didn’t get upset or argue, I just flew and trained. then her dad got sick, and we were back and forth five six times a month on what would have been a 15 hour drive or a 4 hour flight. she bit her lip and “tolerated” until the plane went to service and she had to fly commercial... cant say she loves flying now, but she appreciates the freedom, convenience and expedience. It works. You find a middle. She doesn’t have to fly anywhere if she doesn’t want to, it’ll come.

The dearth of information available here never ceases to amaze me. Thanks for all the info, it’s like drinking from a firehose!

So once at altitude is it similar to TN engines where you cruise at or very near sea level pressure?

Is there a modification to make any of the k models turbo normalized?

I gathered that waste gates and intercoolers can be added, but does adding a wastegate means it operates as a turnbo normalizer, does it just open at certain pressure, does the pilot have to activate the waste gate? I would prefer an automatic waste gate for a turbo personally, one less way to damage the engine accidentally, but don’t know if all waste gates are automatic

Annual, A, B, and C as well. I know nothing about jets, what I do know is a friend of mine who flys a falcon for his employer, just got it out of a million+ annual and A & B check.

It’s a g1000 so it’s not really an option to turn off the avionics. the only way I could silence the alarm was to pull the audio breaker which prevents me from transmitting me on the radio, but I can hear the radio. I went through the schematic in the poh and there is no reference to this annunciation anywhere at all. Still baffled as to how it got triggered in flight and stuck in the position. I was in a cruise climb and my airspeed had not dropped below 140kts when it started chirping. haven’t been able to find a schematic of the switch online, and removing the switch doesn’t appear to be a simple task. I also don’t know if removing the switch without disassembling it will provide anymore explanation.

I would really like to avoid a debate in this thread over whether turbo or non turbo is better, needed, good or bad, and just focus on some help describing the modifications and which ones are most favorable to pilot management/mismanagement.. I am helping a friend shop for a mooney, and they are looking at K’s, I’ve noticed that there are an almost infinite way that the turbo models are described with the various models and modifications. My basic understanding, which is likely incomplete and or incorrect, is that the K models did not come with automatic wastegates, aka turbo normalized. I see there are numerous modifications and stc’s for these models but don’t really understand their impacts, features, advantages or disadvantages, or which ones are even still available Is there a particular model, modification or stc that protects from over boosting or operates like a turbo normalizer on the k models, or is that what makes a “K” a 252?