Schllc

I just signed a contract on a Bravo. I’ve reviewed the logs thoroughly. 1500tt half the cylinders have been replaced, exhaust was removed and sent for repair at 1200 hours. Pretty good maintenance at factory and Maxwell except for the last few years. any bravo or tks specific issues I should be looking for or concerned about or look for? im pretty versed on “Mooney”, and normal aging airplane issues but have no experience with Bravo’s or Lycoming engines. All four I have owned have been continentals. any advice would be appreciated.

I was wondering if from the hundreds of years of Mooney owners someone may know if, and if not why, there hasn’t been an stc for HP increase for the Lycoming in the bravo? the engine is derated from 350hp, and actually produces that HP in other airframe applications. couldn’t they bump it to 325 in the Bravo? Aside from an approval of an STC sounding daunting given the bureaucracy of the FAA, I don’t know what’s involved but it’s a simple an inexpensive upgrade on the continental. Why isn’t that an option on the lycoming?

Not many that have that combo in those years here is one. I looked at logs and aside from some minor DH when the plane rolled off its chicks, or wasn’t chocked. logs seem suspicious until you see pics of incident. nothing burger. UL is little less than 750, but it’s your wishlist and I think very close to a fair price. https://www.controller.com/listing/for-sale/195760273/2000-mooney-m20r-ovation2-piston-single-aircraft

My understanding is that the gross weight challenge is a function of the gear limitations. Is the gear not able to withstand the weight, or the spar, or the airframe, all three? The fuselage and gear are chromoly tubing, and the spar extruded aluminum. Instant strength could be added by thickening the wall sizes of both, pivot points could also increase in diameter if necessary. The size and shape of all the components would remain static, at least in overall measurements to maintain clearance and tolerance. The additional weight would be minimal increase on the grand scale, and you wouldn’t have to redesign half the plane for longer, more complicated and expensive new gear. It seems so obvious that I’m sure it’s been ruled out for a reason, Im just curious to know why.

Couldn’t agree more. left for a trip with my family a few summers ago, and May failed shortly after takeoff. landed back at my field and priced out all the options. The plane was 12 years old, and the family didn’t enjoy the experience anymore than I did.... turned out if you bought two new mags, harness and plugs as a package is was only about $800 more than rebuilding the two mags The mechanic actually tried to talk me out of it, said it was all unnecessary. Perhaps it was, but I would do the same thing over again, every time. For me, an airplanes ignition source is no place to save a few sheckles.

I already clarified this, the plane has never been registered in another country. The plane is a little over a year old and I am the second owner. Perhaps new(er) planes all come with this type of elt.

I honestly don’t know anything more than I was told, which is that the elt must be programmed to the tail number, which required removing the unit and sending it to someone to update the new tail number and reinstall. the noaa registration is a separate thing than can be done online. the plane was new so there was no importing from another country.

Well, premier in ft laudersale removed my elt, sent it out, and reinstalled it, AND I had to update the registration with noaa. let’s just say if I were to find out they lied to me and this didn’t need to be done, I wouldn’t be surprised. But it’s what happened about three months ago, and I’m pretty sure it’s required.

The ELT and the transponder has to be reprogrammed for the correct tail number as well. This goes with log entries. I would go to the faa site and search for damage history by serial number. It will follow the plane this way regardless of the tail number. http://www.aviationdb.com/Aviation/AircraftQuery.shtm#SUBMIT

What did PBS quote you? Was it a Walter or a RR? How does that work, do they do the stc, or can you convert to experimental? I don’t think it will ever be “economically viable” but it sure as heck would be cool, and very little about GA is economically viable... it still baffles me that someone went through the effort and expense to do the conversion on a bonanza but no one has for a mooney. I mean their one claim to fame from the beginning was speed and efficiency. The UL on the bonanza makes it a two person airplane as well, but you don’t get the benefit of the sleek airframe, or the ability to carry 130 gal of fuel. nNeither will ever have mass appeal without coming out of the stratosphere in pricing, but I’d be willing to bet the Mooney would really be a rocket at 25k+ with a turbine... if I had the money to burn i would do it just to be the first. It would also be a rock solid way to distinguish the appeal from a cirrus, with turbine reliability.

That’s pretty cool! How’s that Mooney turboprop project coming?

The new style rocker switches tend to break pretty easily. I wouldn’t use them if it were me.

None of the four 550’s I have owned would idle as low as 500. All of them were high 7’s with one not really enjoying anything under 8. none of them would run on the ground idling as low as 500. Is 500rpm idle typical for the 550 in anyone else’s plane?

Ditto

I don’t think I was beating the brand. I love my mooney, and I have loved every one I have had. I am 100% supportive, donate considerably to this forum as well as MAPA. I am also a big advocate to my peers and anyone who will listen to convert all I can to mooniacs. I also am aware that what I am getting from the factory, I am lucky to get. They had no obligation to help me with the state of the company, and the challenges they face. The poster asked what mooney was today, and I was honest about my experience. If someone disagrees with my opinion I can handle that, but I’m not wrong, because what I conveyed is factual. If anyone has a problem with the truth that’s really not my concern. That being said, and in all fairness, I should mention that as a result of this thread, the CFO of Mooney called me today to discuss my dilemma and as I stated before, I’m confident it will get addressed. Even more so now. I’m waiting on a broken window. It’s been replaced once before and broke again in the exact same spot. It was confirmed again to be “in stock”, but was told they are waiting on some other items needed for install to ship.

I am an owner of a 2019. Their warranty service for me has been borderline. They help but it isnt unusual to go a week or two without a response to a direct question or problem. I have been waiting on a replacement part under warranty for about a month now with no date, in spite of me asking directly for information, and them telling me it was available and being shipped immediately. I do believe it will come, but there is seemingly no sense of urgency and what appears to be severe apathy. At least with regard to communication. It is hard to say how much is just a function of aviation in general, and how much is mooney. It is a bizarre business. I believe it’s mostly just the lopsided leverage owners and operators face. Factories, vendors and shops basically do what they want, what are you going to do? I would say at best there is really very little incentive for me to ever purchase a new plane again. i would rather have no expectation of warranty. At least that way you know what you’re getting into.

Actually no, i would not say is not all “fairly equal”. I have a friend who has been working on their ppl for 7 years, has close to 300 hours and hasn’t taken a checkride. He even owns a cirrus and a Pilatus, and flys with an instructor all the time! I also met a kid, who went through the ppl in two months with the minimum hours required. I started flying when I was 14, stopped for 20 years then started again, and flew with others for several years until time and finances aligned for me to fly regularly, which is when I decided to get my license. I understand some of the folks here think it’s a mistake to move from a trainer to a mooney. They are all entitled to their opinion, I would say for some it may be a mistake, it was not in my case. It was the right path. I evaluated the options and felt it was actually safer to accumulate all the time I could in the plane I was going to be actually flying. On top of that, renting a complex, high performance plane where I am was 350 an hour wet without the instructor. I would have pumped $30k into the ether. Instead I bought my first ovation, put 350 hours on it and sold it for 10k more than I paid for it. The guy asked for some advice and he can decide what’s best for him, without us bashing each other’s opinions

Everybody’s experience and comfort level is different. Whatever works for you is what’s important. I bought my first ovation before I got my ppl, because I wanted to do all of my ifr training in the plane I was going to fly. I hired a flight instructor that was looking for a job flying freight, and probably flew 30-40 hours with him in my ovation until I went solo, then I flew with a variety of instructors until I was ready for my ifr checkride. as a result I became very comfortable and proficient in the actual airplane I fly. I definitely found it different from the 172 I trained in, but the Mooney in many ways is easier to fly because it’s behavior is predictable and crisp. I do not believe moving from a trainer into an ovation is a bad idea if you expect to use the airplane. I have flown close to 200 hours a year since I started flying and almost all of that has been in mooney’s. I say do it, if you really use the plane you will not regret it. I do advise you to go straight into ifr training and fly frequently.

Ok, so an update, ironically right after I posted this I received an email explaining that someone who calculated the W&B at some point added the additional weight of the engine to the calc, didn’t add the increased gross useful load that comes alone. The correct UL is actually 904#, which makes more sense.... still love to know if it’s possible to get the 3200 gross weight for this airframe?

Found a rocket with a useful load of 721# i havn’t seen something that low since the very first mooney I ever looked at which was a converted Porsche model that had a useful load in the high 600’s. The broker told me the last time anyone who asks about useful load in a mooney is when you buy it. Five years and four mooney’s Later, I understand why he said that, even though I still believe it was an irresponsible statement. I understand why that one was low, but I don’t get why this K model is so low. Can this be all old avionics and accumulation of unnecessary additions, or is this typical for rockets/missile conversions? Or is this more similar to what the encore conversions require?

What an awesome trip! my ears are ringing just thinking about it! congrats!

The noise attenuation aspect of the various headsets is definitely a hotly debated topic, and I wouldn’t argue with anyone about what works best for them. i fly with the clarity aloft, and have tried all of the top brands for more than a quick flight. I have actually purchased four different headsets and used them for a few weeks, each time going back to clarity aloft. when I fly for several hours with noise cancelling headphones, my ears ring and hurt for days after. I do not have this problem with the in ear headset. for me the clarity aloft works best for noise and the comfort cannot be matched. No issue with sunglasses, they are a fraction of the weight, no hot Sweaty ears, or head bumping on the ceiling, and no ringing in the ears when I land. I love them, and highly recommend them. the only con is you can’t mount the o2 boom to them

The one axiom of insurance, is that the premiums are expensive when you don’t need it and cheap as heck when you do.

This happened to me on my ovation. there is a procedure you can do to recalibrate the magnetometer on some models within the menus. If it won’t recalibrate, it’s shot, as it was on mine I don’t believe it works on all versions of g1000 software, and there are myriad as the vary with equipment, appointments , as well as software versions. in my instance the magnetometer had to be rebuilt. parts 1320 parts, 1000 labor. turn around was pretty quick.