blacknchrome

Looks nice. Congrats

That thing has been on the market for a long time. It doesn't seem too far off for a 79 K model with a mid-time Rocket engine and some work that needs to be done maybe soon.

This thread needs to be squawking 7500. I still think you should strongly consider the Long Range Tanks in your Bravo if you fly or plan to fly long distances with it. If you never will fly more than short trips, it's probably not worth it.

Quote: KLRDMD 2) 50º ROP is just about the worst place you can run any engine. There are lots of LOP threads here. Rather than start a new one and duplicate everything that has already been said, I suggest doing a search.

I say go for the install as one who owns a Bravo with 118g tanks. They add great utility to the airframe. You now have so many more options, if you want, because of carrying a lot more fuel. Yes, you can 'tanker' cheaper fuel, which may add up over enough trips. You have the ability to have a much longer reserve fuel supply if you need to divert. If you get up at altitude and like the ride/strong tailwind/or are on top of a thick layer/bad weather, you can just keep going past your first stop without having to worry about fuel. You are not going to fly 5 hours every trip just because you have the gas - but if you want to, you can, and safely. It does add resale value I believe. You may not get the entire investment out, but you will get some - or at least it tips a comparison in your favor that you may sell your airplane and another plane without them may not sell at all. Fuel stops take up so much time. I've been told by what I believe are some of the experts that the Bravo engine does not respond well to LOP operations. It was worded to me as strongly as don't even try. There have been a few examples of owners trying so hard to run LOP that they spent thousands in repairs. Ask Maxwell about it sometime or the guys at All American. Honestly, in an aircraft of that price range, with a $64,000+ engine, why take a risk of frying something to save a few gallons per hour. Fuel is relatively cheap to a new TSIO-540.

Nice job.

Don, Thanks for the update. That's a great looking, simple design. I may be in contact at some point to get the details and build my own. If you do decide you want to sell it to build an improved model, let me know.

There aren't a ton of us that have TKS on this board. We haven't had our Bravo a full winter yet to have too many chances to use it, and the only time I picked up any ice so far was so short-lived I could see the sun shining on the other side of the cloud so I didn't bother turning on the pumps. The ferry pilot of our bird said he flew it in freezing rain for over an hour...that's a little bold, but he said the airplane handled it fine.

I do think you made a good decision by searching out mooneyspace to list the aircraft. The plane does have some things going for it. I'm sure it will make someone a good, efficient ride. What's after the J for you?

I don't want to be rude, but you may need to reconsider that asking price. $95,000 seems super high for very rough interior, original paint, and no altitude hold. With front seats like these, I'd offer you significantly less. And that's my opinion.......

I went Piper-Piper-Mooney, and it is a wonderful step-up. The Mooney's speed and stability are great. The first Piper was an Archer, so essentially the same as your 180hp Warrior, but the Mooney now is a long-body Bravo, so I can't weigh in too much on your G/F search. I have some time in a C, and that thing really was fast and effiecient for having the same engine as the Archer so that impressed me. The Archer cabin was more comfortable, however. It's not a huge difference, but it is noticable. It sounds like you are flying this airplane to get someplace, not to just go up and take a joy-ride, so I would guess you will like the Mooney much better. You should be able to find a C/G/maybe F in the 50 range that's fairly well equipped. You will be in the 60-90 range for one that's decked out, and for that price you should consider a J model.

Congrats! Nice looking airplane and everyone sure looks excited!

Looks like a beautiful bird...Upgrading or downsizing? What's the asking price?

I'm still shaking my head at this one... Why would anyone do this? They make perfectly great airplanes to be equipped with floats. They are not by Mooney. One example spends every night with our Bravo

Last time I scrubbed the belly of the Bravo from one end to the other, I simply used Palmolive Oxy dish soap. I tried a bunch of things, and this seemed to work the best. It's safe on the paint and doesn't cause some of the issues that the original Simple Green may. It took some work and a few rags, but it worked in getting the oil and exhaust off the belly behind that fire-breathing TIO540.

I think I would pass. You will end up with a lot of money in that thing just to get it in decent shape it sounds like. The way the 231 market is, you can find something turn key for less than you'll have in that airplane when you get it in fair condition. There is some benefit to doing the work yourself to your specs and choices, so if you must have it all your way, then this is how to do it...but it doesn't sound like you are. I guess if you spend another $50,000 on it, you'll have low time eng, new P&I, an IFR panel (only if it already has an autopilot), and tanks, which make it a nice bird for $100. But, you'll still have the corrosion issues on the gear and who knows where else.

Use Roundout. He's got hundreds of hours of Mooney time, especially if yours is a long body. He's in the DFW area. I have trained with Josh too. PM me if you want more information, I'll fill you in. (Paging Roundout..........)

Has anyone read the June '10 Aviation Consumer? It has an article titled "The D-Mag's Demise: Not a Crisis -- Yet". Sure doesn't sound good for availability of the dual mag used on the J's IO-360A3B6D in the near future. After reading it, I would recommend be switching to Lycoming's A3B6 non D engine at overhaul.

Quote: scottfromiowa No, KSMooniac...my comments were directed to Blacknchrome, JimR & GeorgePerry as a clarification to their collective response to my statement that Late Model Mooney's can't compete with Cirrus/Cessna...regarding SALES. I stand by my comments. They still make Camaro's and Challenger's (cars) with HUGE HP displacement...and that is the direction that Mooney took in wanting to be the speed leader...why not if you can afford a half a million for an airplance you aren't worried about fuel...in that market segment...BUT I drive a four cylinder turbo that has a six speed and delivers over 30mpg on the highway...because I drive for work and want a car that delivers power and economy...I believe that this is where the 201 shined as well and based on fuel costs a 201 with electronic ignition and upgrades to interior and cowl would deliver speed and economy in a world where both are valued... Mooney Ovation is the fastest piston powered aircraft...great...and they aren't building planes. I couldn't justify/afford the expense of a new 172 much less an Ovation so my comments are NOT for me to afford a "new" 201...but maybe I could afford a 10 year old model in my remaining flying life...IF THEY BUILD THEM NOW.

Quote: scottfromiowa ....///The big long wide body Ovation's are beautiful, but they can't compete with Cirrus/Cessna. We all love our 201's and me my M20E. ...///

"However, the few rockets I ran across after 100gal tanks and whatever else has been added they end up with 300-400 payload. " Just remember, just because it has 100 gallon tanks, doesn't mean they need to be filled. For your 600nm trip, you need far less fuel than full tanks, which will allow you to carry more 'stuff'. I can carry 118 gallons in the Bravo, but unless I am by myself, full fuel doesn't work on paper. It's just another aspect to manage of our very capable, beautiful airplanes.

Here it is http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/MOONEY-M20S-EAGLE/1999-MOONEY-M20S-EAGLE/1160464.htm?dlr=1 99 Eagle, Ovation upgrades, with AC The guys at All American are good.

Go with the Bravo. Many benefits worth the 30K - first off, it's newer - and that means every part in the airplane is newer. I think that's an advantage. The lower time engine and updated panel is a plus too. And, it's a long-body - which gives you a larger airplane with no loss in speed. I will say the exact opposite of KSMooniac, respectfully. I would buy it for the Lycoming - it seems that a huge majority of the turbo, 6 cylinder Continentals need fairly significant work around or before 1000 hours. The Lycoming 540 seems to have fewer issues, and in talking to guys like Maxwell and All American, they see lots of Bravos at or OVER TBO without any problem. Yes, you will burn more fuel,. but the Bravos are beautiful, fast, capable airplanes.

Quote: roundout How'd you get that second shot?

Well, Here are the results of the search. Found a beautiful TKS Bravo loaded with nearly all the options we could want. It's a pleasure to fly.