donkaye

On the first engine I had the Bravo conversion done at 1,395 hours. Lycoming basically gave us the conversion with a charge of $5,000 if you had it done within 2 years. I waited until the 2 years was just about up to get the most use out of the conversion. So I took it over TBO to 2,395 hours before I replaced it with a Reman Zero Time Engine. The second engine went to 1,600+ hours and would have made it past TBO had there not been a shop incident during an Annual a few years ago that dropped the airplane on its nose during a Gear Bypass Switch test. Two prop blades were bent, and although the prop wasn't in motion, an engine teardown was required. Since I had only 400 hours left on the engine, I chose to save myself over $50,000 and sacrifice the 400 hours I had left on the engine. I purchased a new Reman for the 3rd engine discounted by what would've been the cost of a teardown, labor for the replacement, and other costs like loss of use that their insurance company paid for. I wouldn't accept a repair of the prop blades, so their insurance company paid for a new prop. I did have to replace two cylinders on the second engine due to intake valve leaks. That was unusual. At the time I think both cylinders were replace for a little under $9,000 including labor. Currently I have 400 hours on the 3rd engine. I expect all Bravo engines should go to TBO if they are treated properly. That doesn't mean running them at 34/2400 at 1750°TIT. So the premise above of 1,300 hours TBO for the Bravo engine is incorrect. Regarding other costs: I recommend proactively overhauling the turbo and waste gate at about 1,100 hours. Relatively speaking it is not too expensive. Main Turbo in Visalia, California does mine. Expect some exhaust work during the engine's life. I've had several cracks from time to time that required the part to be sent out for repair. Religiously change the oil every 25 hours and plugs every 450 hours. That's about it.

A few additional comments... Truth be told all of our airplanes are good 2 place airplanes with all the baggage you want to carry. Yes, you can carry four people, but range is limited and close quarters are good for 2½ hours max. If you want 4 people and baggage for a long cross country, a Mooney and most other single engine airplanes are not the airplanes to have. If turbines are not included, probably the first airplane that would be good to carry 4 people a long distance would be the Twin C310Q with 305 HP turbocharged engines. In the turboprop, for me it would be the new Epic with 1200 HP, 34,000 ft ceiling, and 317 knot cruse speed on 50 gal/hr. I fly mine with 2 weight and balances; one with the back seats in and one without them. In the last year I haven't flown with the back seats in. 1½ years ago I stuck one back seat in to take a couple of trusted contractors to San Diego to give me some bids. Would I consider upgrading a none 252 K Model. No. The critical altitude without the Merlin waste gate and intercooler is 13,000 feet, not much better than a NA J Model. Depending on the K and engine, I have found the K to be too susceptible to overheating in the climb, and some have had very anemic climb rates that sometimes have actually scared me. I wouldn't want to take off over an obstacle in a few I have taught in. For 2 people and going on long cross country flights for maximum single engine piston capability, I'm back to recommending the Bravo as the best value for the money. I've made a bunch of comments above that some may disagree with. How reliable are my comments for those who haven't flown with me? If anyone is interested, I've attached a couple of spreadsheets to help make that decision. Logbook 9:4:2022.pdf Logbook Summary of Flight Instrucxtion Given 9:5:2022.pdf

Inflation is running rampant and in my opinion likely to continue at least for the next 2 years. If you are interested in upgrading airplanes there is no better time than now. Planes will only increase in cost due in part to decreasing supply of Mooneys and decreased value of the dollar led by large scale inflation. My first panel upgrade completed in 2014, and I continued modifying it as Garmin kept coming out with new products. My costs were decreased by $30,000 by Garmin rebates at the time and sales of removed avionics. Had I waited till now to do the upgrade the increased costs would be astronomical in addition to not even being able to get the products I wanted. For example I reviewed what I paid for the GTN 750 back then. My price was $13,675. Now it lists for $18,995, a 38.9% increase, and you can't even get one for 4-5 months. The same goes for all the other equipment. And forget about meaningful rebates now. Why should Garmin give rebates when they can't even supply the market now? Regarding the Acclaim Type S; the cost differential between it and the Bravo is significant and it has the G1000. Its avionics can never be changed. Mine can be changed at any time something new comes out--and it has been, as when Garmin came out with the G500TXi. Out with the G500 and in with the G500TXi. Out with the KFC 150 and its wing rock and in with the GFC 500. And the touch screen units with simplified menus are sooo good. I can't imagine going back to only have the use of knobs and buttons all over the place. Having the option of either is so nice. If you think having one turbocharger to maintain is problematic, how about 2 on the Acclaim? No one is going to be able to convince me the Acclaim is the way to go.

As of last week, I've owned my M20M Bravo for 30 years. I closed on it on August 28, 1992. If there is anyone who has owned their's longer, I'd be interested in knowing. I'm on my 3rd engine. I've flown my airplane over 4,000 hours. It still seems like new to me. My panel has been upgraded to the limit of what is available for a Mooney. Better than the Acclaim Ultra G1000 Nxi, in my opinion. I've flown and taught in nearly every Mooney model over the past 28 years that I've been a CFII, and more specifically a Mooney specific CFII. I like them all, but the Bravo is the airplane for me. Owning an airplane that is properly maintained is costly, and the Bravo is no exception. Mine gets what it wants with no exceptions. The most expensive of the variable costs are: 1. Engine overhaul. 2. Proactive Turbo and Wastegate overhaul about every 1,300 hours. 3. Prop Overhaul every 2,500 hours. 4. Complete Fuel Tank Reseal after 24 years of ownership. One of the most irritating recurrent costs for me has been the maintenance of the prop deice. The brush blocks need replacement after about 5-600 hours. And recently all the boots needed to be replaced because of an installation error on the part of the prop shop. Although the warranty had expired, they agreed to cover the replacement because it was clearly their error. After only 390 hours, due to not securing the wires properly, centrifugal force caused the wires to slam into the screws of the propeller cone and short every boot. However, most Bravos never had the prop deice option installed. In short, after flying all the other Mooney models I have flown, I love getting back to my airplane.

I agree and edited the above to correct.

I couldn't find the thread where someone made the suggestion to run a test on the effectiveness of having a yaw damper, so am starting a new thread. I ran the test a few days ago. With the yaw damper on I applied full left rudder (with difficulty because the YD was on and fighting the displacement), then released the rudder pressure. With no oscillation the plane IMMEDIATELY straightened out and stabilized. I then turned the YD off and did the same thing. First, displacement was easy because the YD was off. Then, there were several lateral oscillations before the plane became stabilized. The test was irrefutable: the Yaw Damper makes a big difference in lateral stability. For the price, it is worth every penny in my opinion.

Glenwood Springs: ALT: 5,916 feet RWY: 3,305x50 DA in the summer could exceed 9,000 feet. By the charts for the Bravo: Ground roll at 10,000 feet is 2,000 feet. Assume a float of 500 feet at that altitude. That means in perfect conditions 2,500 feet on a 3,300 foot runway. Landing over a 50 foot obstacle is 3,750 feet by a factory test pilot in perfect conditions. There's little (how about no) margin for error with the Bravo at Glenwood Springs. I haven't, and will not be taking a Bravo in there. I hope anyone with a Bravo who does, doesn't have USAIG, my insurance company. The short bodies with much lighter gross weights, that's a different story. Their issue is getting out. Why take unnecessary risks when flying? Fly the appropriate airplane for the circumstance.

I've taught the Mooney PPP Mountain Flying Class numerous times. The NA airplanes would fly in the morning and the turbocharged airplanes would go in the afternoon. Most of the time we operated out of Colorado Springs. Except for Glenwood Springs and airports you would not take your Mooney, the runways were all 7,000 feet or longer. Don't even consider Glenwood Springs in a Bravo. I would take students to Salida (now KANK) and up the Arkansas Valley to Buena Vista (now KAEJ) and on into Leadville (KLXV). Salida is interesting in that the runway landing East slopes downhill about 2°. Not good to land that direction. We'd fly the ridge up the valley. The sun hitting the ridge heats it up and gives good lift. I learned a lesson one time in leadville. At a DA of around 13,000 feet the engine needs to be started with the mixture almost full out. The air is thin with little cooling, so continually trying to start without waiting for the starter to cool down leads to----. Taxiing needs to be done with the mixture almost all the way out. Takeoffs are unusual in that you can't just put the mixture full and give it full power and takeoff. The engine will immediately quit. You need to hold the brakes and alternately push in the mixture a little bit then the throttle, then the mixture, then the throttle, until both are full in. Then go. Edited: The above paragraph regarding leaning applies to TURBOCHARGED AIRPLANES only! NA airplanes need to be leaned for takeoff at high DAs. I'd then go to Aspen. Aspen is really in the mountains. We'd do the approach off of Red Table VOR. It does have a VASI, but you will think you are high because the runway slopes up 2°. All of that would take about 2 hours. There are still other airports of interest in Colorado like Gunnison and Granby with a big hill on the approach to the West. Most of the time the DAs in Colorado are above 9,000 feet in the summer. Using the rule of thumb of 2% increase in TAS per thousand feet of DA, that means your GS on approach would be at least 18% faster than IAS. So all patterns should be flown wide to avoid overshooting and approach speed should right on. Otherwise, the possibility of bouncing is increased. Having said all of that, my personal preference is to avoid the mountains when flying cross country. I've flown cross country numerous times. Depending on where you are going there are 3 ways to go; the northern route across Wyoming (the best way to get to Salt Lake City), the central route through the Monarch Pass, and the southern route through El Paso. I prefer the northern or southern route depending on the time of year. I have flown the central route, through Gunnison and Montrose along V244, but if you are going to do it, it should be done by 10:30 to the latest 11:00 in the morning in clear conditions. Don't mess with the mountains with any convection. As someone mentioned earlier, get up early and be done flying by noon. Flying Wyoming is generally not a good experience in the afternoon and even in the morning there are times you'd rather not be in the air, as in our trip to Oshkosh this year. The same goes for the southern route in the monsoon season. I think it is more important to understand the weather in flying the mountains (and flying in general) than the mechanics of doing the flying. This posting isn't meant to be an all encompassing lesson on Mountain Flying, but if my observations are followed, should lead to a safe cross country journey.

You're almost there. While you could get by on the cheap with only 2 servos, I think you would be much happier with the pitch trim servo, too. In that way you would not need to monitor the pitch and trim it yourself when the AP indicated to "trim up" or "trim down".

Sorry, if you need everything, it's obviously not going to cost $12K. But you'd need a GPS and attitude source even with the BK AP, unless you just want a wing leveler, which is what the original M20 model came with.

Without trying to be too argumentative, the GFC 500 plus G5 with the minimum 2 servos like the BK Aerocruz 100 would cost about $6,995 plus $2,500 plus installation. All in probably $12K. That's just the cost of a reseal and the plane value would increase by nearly the same value. The increase in safety value: immeasurable. I know you won't buy anything I have said, but let me relate a couple of things that won't change your minds, but are relevant. A few years ago a student of mine called to discuss a house he wanted to buy, since I've been buying houses most of my life. There was a 300K difference between what he was willing to pay and what the Seller wanted. With 50 years of experience I suggested he pay the difference because, based on the past, the value would exceed that in the future. In his case, not surprisingly, he took that advice. He called recently to thank me because the house value where he lives has gone up about $2 million. To bring that analogy back to autopiliots, assuming the Aerocruz was available, what is the price difference between that unavailable AP and the GFC 500? $5K? Not to be too dramatic, but Is your life, comfort during long distant flying, and just "plane" fun worth the extra $5K?

When I bought my airplane in 1992 it had the most advanced avionics package available a the time, the Silver Crown package and EFIS 40. In those days Mooney was always ahead of the curve in avionics. From the KLN88 Loran BK came up with the KLN 90B, which in my opinion was the best GPS of its generation. The database support was outstanding. So when they started bringing their glass display, whose name I can't even remember, to trade shows I couldn't wait to get one. But year after year they couldn't get it to market. I still kept using the KLN 90B until 2013 when the EFIS 40 went bad. I called them to see what it would cost to get it fixed. I was quoted $18,000. This is what was basically what is now less capable than the Garmin G5. That was the turning point for me. Except for trying to get Garmin support on the phone quickly, every interaction I have had with them has been first class, and as a former electrical engineer, the product engineering has been near flawless for me. Many of their new products are just "have to have". As such, except for a couple of other outstanding products from other vendors like the MVP-50 from EI and the WX500, my panel is all Garmin. They are the rock of GA avionics. It is beyond my comprehension why anyone who wants a product in this lifetime would even consider looking at BK, whose history for the last 20 years has been nothing less than abysmal, unrealistic timetables, and whose GA product line is almost completely made up of vaporware.

Considering the price of an Acclaim, that sounds pretty good.

An example of how NOT to use it: Coming from Stockton, I would not use VNAV Direct to start the descent from say the Altamont Pass to VPEMB, the visual reporting point ATC wants you to be over when going to San Jose. You would definitely hit the East Bay Hills Mountains. Instead, based on my preset descent angle, I set a VNAV constraint the forces the descent to start when there will be no intersection of the airplane with the East Bay Hills.

The CDI should auto slew to the correct course for ILS and LOC approaches. It will not auto slew for VOR approaches.

I'm actually not sure what a Baro-corrected altitude means in the context of VNAV. I'm thinking it may require an air data computer. I tried to Google it with no satisfactory results as related to VNAV. Maybe someone here knows, or I think I'll check with my Avionics shop or as a last resort, Garmin.

I personally never use it, and you should be careful when using it because you might have a mountain in the way of your descent. However if you want to immediately start your descent for whatever reason, you would set the altitude to which you want to descend and the GPS will construct a descent profile to arrive at that altitude from your present position.

No such thing as VNAV calc. It is a separate software routine and is called VCALC. Also, it is one or the other and is set up at the time of installation. Your choice. Also VNAV won't work with VNAV direct, as the descent begins immediately from the present position in that case.

Do you have a Baro-corrected altitude source, one of the requirements for VNAV. I've had students who wondered why their VNAV did't work and they didn't have the Baro-corrected altitude source.

I agree. That's why I viewed as many reviews as I could find, and flew with a student who had it for over 50 hours. The facts are the facts. The Mooney is a fast and efficient plane and I personally don't think that the Aerozcruz 100 is an autopilot that should go in one. To me having a pitch trim servo for altitude hold on a long cross country is one of the best things in an AP for reduced workload. Currently, this AP does not have it. If nothing else, for resale value, I think you need one with a more powerful feature set.

According to the designer it is a rate based AP. Watch this video. That's where I got the rate based information.

1. Can't use below 700 feet. 2. No ILS or VOR approaches. 3. Will fly GPS approaches but is not certified for any approaches. 3. No pitch trim servo availability. 4. No IAS climbs or descents. 5. Does have CWS. 6. Altitude syncing to backups or other glass very limited. 7. Rate based. Google "reviews for the Aerocruz 100". There are several of them. That's where I got the above data. On the plus side it is cheap. As "Flying Dirty" says, "It's better than nothing". Having flown over 50 hours with a student who has it in a Turbo Arrow IV, I would add, "But not much". It came with the airplane. The partners are waiting for the parts to come in for the transition to the GFC 500.

Has anyone other than me actually flown the Aerocruz 100? If so, I'd like to hear your comment on its operation.

Speed brakes immediately increase the descent rate by 200 ft/min.

You are ABSOLUTELY right. Using speed brakes in a crosswind and gusty situation is VERY dangerous in my opinion. As I mentioned in a writeup on my website (https://donkaye.com/useful-aviation-articles), I experimented with speed brakes on a gusty windy day for extra stability. I hit a downdraft near the ground, and even with full power in a Bravo it was necessary to retract the speed brakes in order to get better control of the descent rate.