johnggreen

I've flown with Aerox Oxsaver cannulas and flowmeters for several years now. They do exactly what they are supposed to do; i.e. control the amount of delivered oxygen. You must use them with a blood oxygen meter so that you can properly adjust them. They have probably cut my oxygen consumption in half which is really helpful on multi-leg cross countries as you avoid the hassle of having to fill up away from your home base. Jgreen

I've flown with Aerox Oxsaver cannulas and flowmeters for several years now. They do exactly what they are supposed to do; i.e. control the amount of delivered oxygen. You must use them with a blood oxygen meter so that you can properly adjust them. They have probably cut my oxygen consumption in half which is really helpful on multi-leg cross countries as you avoid the hassle of having to fill up away from your home base. Jgreen

Thinwing, Frankly, it has been so long since we looked into the issue (and not finding the cause forgot about it) that I don't remember the details. At my next oil change, I'll figure out the exact probe types and position. On another note, I see that you have put in the G500. I would like your likes/dislikes and anything you might suggest for such an installation. I have been toying with the idea of going to a larger airplane, but frankly, I really like the Bravo. Should I decide to keep it, I'm going to make some changes. Here is what I have and what I think I want. I would appreciate your comments. Have: 2-430's, WAAS MX-20 KFC-225 with WSI weather Garmin TXP with traffic (half ass traffic) but will be improving or so we are promised. KI-256 AI and King HSI. The MX-20 is no longer supported so that is an impetus to upgrade. I have an electric standby AI so the only thing that is vacuum is my KI-256 AI. I figure the easiest way to upgrade the MX-20 is a GTN-750 which will also give me a 430 for trade or sale. I can put an aspen setup of PFD/MFD which gives redundancy and eliminates my KI-256 and the need for vacuum. I'm not debating the Aspen/Garmin PFD, which is better, but the Aspen gives me redundancy easier and is much easieer to install. I would then have roll steering. Then, while I'm spending money I would like to go to the new Avidyne digital AP controller which will upgrade my AP to today's technology. Or, I could go buy an new Corvalis 400 if I can find the money!! In which case, this economy and real estate had better see a big upturn. So, Thinwing, what do you think from your experience? JG

N6719N spelled it out clearly. Any good instructor is going to put you in marginal envelopes so you can learn the intricacies of flying "on the edge". You simply can't do that safely (or without damage to the airplane) in a Mooney. You don't learn how to fly an airplane straight and level in smooth air. A Cessna, Cherokee, or other will go there and back without risk; a Mooney won't. Jgreen CFII

Thinwing, I bought my Bravo from Premier with 400 hours on the Hobbs. As part of the purchase prep, I had an engine heater, GAMI's and EI engine monitor installed. The factory CHT on my airplane is coming off #3. Within the first few months of my purchase, I was hit with the crankshaft AD. When the engine was reinstalled, Premier redid all the baffling for which I account my low CHT's. An interesting note is that my Moritz guage shows over 30-40 degrees higher than my EI on #3 CHT. They start out the same at ambient temps and spread as the engine warms. I've had it checked several times, but nobody can figure it out. The CHT's shown on the EI are all similar though #3 is always higher on both CHT and EGT. Jgreen

Ross, My Bravo rarely breaks 310 degrees on any cylinder. I think the only temp that should concern you as being too low is the oil temp which should be at least 160-170. Your cylinders are well within operating range. Be happy or as my aunt has told me for forty years, quit trying to buy trouble. Jgreen

Carquik, Donkaye, I want my fellow Bravo owners, you included, to understand that of all the engines I have owned and flown behind, I understand the management of the Bravo's AF1B the least. There are lots of owners like Don who have run these engines "hard" with great success and others who have had early failures with much lower power settings. I DON'T KNOW. At the risk of saying that I know anything, I will give a few ideas that I think may have some merit. I took the online Advanced Pilot Seminar and with other readings believe that I have a much better understanding of what does and does not affect the engine longevity.There are three factors that primarily affect engine life. I'll save the #1 for last. The other two are heat and internal cylinder pressures. Heat is primarily CHT, not EGT. EGT is almost irrelevant it would seem if it is not creating high CHT's. EGT's are also largely a product of where one places the probes so their temps from one engine to another don't necessarily correlate. My Bravo is very well baffled. Regardless of power setting or altitude, I almost never see 350 degrees on any cylinder. As for internal pressures? Well, there is really no way to know so if you say that you lower internal pressure by being either well ROP or LOP, my question is "lower than what". If they are lower than a reasonable pressure, what difference does it really make. The info learned from Advanced Pilot Seminars pretty much dispells decades of support of ROP by engine manufacturers. The reasons that APS gives for the ROP position by the manufacturer's makes sense. The most significant reason to me it that it is simply not that easy to do correctly. What I do think I understand is that we should avoid the "red box". Still, if the red box represents the settings where CHT's and cylinder head pressures are the greatest, does that always mean that "the greatest" is harmful? The most helpful info that I gleaned from the APS is that, short of high CHT's, valves fail primarily for one reason; improper installation by the manufacturer or the installer. I don't know exactly what message I intend to convey from this except that I think the Bravo engine is pretty much bullet proof if you keep CHT's at reasonable levels and don't overheat the turbo with TIT's. I would hazard a guess, an amateurish projection, that most Bravo engine failures are a product of high CHT's from improper baffling or burning up the turbo or improper overhauls/manufacture. One of my son's is very interested in the field of "behavioral finance". We won't go there, but he constantly warns me that the most dangerous attitude is what we think we know that is in fact wrong. So, this little treatise of mine is really for one thing; your opinions, inputs and observations. It would be interesting to hear from pilot's who have actually experienced early engine failures on Bravo's or required top overhauls well before TBO. OK, let's hear what you have to say. Jgreen

And don't ask me why the first of the two former posts was cut off. Jgreen

I suppose that I should just count myself lucky!!! I can't imagine the fuel flows you guys are experiencing with your Bravos. I have regularly flown from my home base, Grenada, MS, to Manassas, VA over the course of the last seven years. I fly GNF-VXV-HEF which is 718 nautical without any vectors which I regularly get due to MOA's and arriving/departing traffic in the Washington area. My no wind fuel burn will be 60-65 gallons depending on the vecors I receive. On my return trips, especially this time of year, 30 knot headwinds are the norm. In seven years I have had to stop for fuel one time; after diverting north into Kentucky to avoid a squall line. Even with these headwinds, I land with ample IFR reserves. With the fuel burn some of you fellows are experiencing, I would rarely, if ever, make the westerly leg without a fuel stop. I will again say that I fly my airplane ROP (1650TIT or peak whichever is lower) in accordance with Lycoming Operator's parameters and get the fuel burn Lycoming predicts. Like Donkaye, I have tried LOP and don't like it. I do a six month mini-annual on my airplane in addition to the regular annual. At my last one, compressions were 78's & 79's. Not meaning to be disrespectful, but if I were burning 18 gph at 2400/30", I would buy a B-55 Baron tomorrow and I am seriously not kidding. Jgreen

I suppose that I should just count myself lucky!!! I can't imagine the fuel flows you guys are experiencing with your Bravos. I have regularly flown from my home base, Grenada, MS, to Manassas, VA over the course of the last seven years. I fly GNF-VXV-HEF which is 718 nautical without any vectors which I regularly get due to MOA's and arriving/departing traffic in the Washington area. My no wind fuel burn will be 60-65 gallons depending on the vecors I receive. On my return trips, especially this time of year, 30 knot headwinds are the norm. In seven years I have had to stop for fuel one time; after diverting north into Kentucky to avoid a squall line. Even with these headwinds, I land with ample IFR reserves. With the fuel burn some of you fellows are experiencing, I would rarely, if ever, make the westerly leg without a fuel stop. I will again say that I fly my airplane ROP in accordance with Lycoming Operator's parameters and get the fuel burn Lycoming predicts. I do a six month mini-annual on my airplane in addition to the regular annual. At my last one, compressions were

Which raises another point. When I upgrade, I will have an MX-20 that works, is working, for sale and will be removed by a professional avionics shop. I can't tell you for sure whether I will make the move in two weeks or six months, but if you think you would have an interest, PM me and I'll put you down to call at that time. Will proabably have a 430 WAAS unit and KI-256 as well. Jgreen

Job, Not meaning to nitpik, but a panel mount MX-20 does have a couple of advantages over a handheld; TCAS and panning of weather being two big advantages. In anything larger than a Mooney, a Bonanza for instance, you can also display on-board radar. The upgraded version, 200 will also support certified TAWS should that be your need. I am going to upgrade my MX-20 soon and have several options. I would certainly retain the panel mount MFD if that were my only option, but with the offering of the ne GTN-750, I can probably kill two birds with one stone for the same money. Jgreen

Dondaye, Welcome! I am really glad to have someone on board who has flown a Bravo for such an extended period of time and hours. When I got Mooneyspace to set up the Bravo section, I recognized that we have an airplane with specific systems and issues. A great deal of benefit can be had by the sharing of our experience and maintenance solutions. I will have to "argue" that I do not have a "magic Bravo". My fuel burns are exactly those set forth in the Lycoming Owner's Manual and my speeds, though quite envy envoking, are barely more than the performance peramaeters set forth by Mooney in the POH; i.e. +/- 2% of book. My Bravo's performance is indeed slightly more than 2% above book, about 2.5% it would seem and it does so with TKS and at gross. Rare, yes, but certainly not unheard of. I have owned, to date, 32 airplanes, some were faster than book, some were slower, for seemingly no reason. And no, my airspeed indicator is not getting undue credit. It does indicate 2 knots fast at cruise, but my speeds are GPS "four corner veified", as well as seven years of long cross county flying. In fact, there are good reasons. As you know, no two airplanes come from the factory "exactly" alike. Sometimes, you get one that is simply straighter and better rigged. Perhaps you are correct. When it happens, it is something akin to magic; a veeery pleasant magic. Another pilot on the field bought a new Acclaim when they came out and there was absolutely no more than 5 knots difference in the speeds of the two airplanes at comparable power settings, though I think he had a "slow" Acclaim. Again, welcome. You should be a wealth of information on Bravo maintenance and pilotage. Jgreen

I have flown behind a MX-20 now for nine years. It has performed almost flawlessly. The first one was in a Skylane driven by a King GPS (sorry don't remember which one) and then in my Bravo driven by a 430. I have WSI weather and one big advantage with the MX-20 is that I can pan my weather map out to any distance and still select a moderate scale. So, I can leave MS and immediately start monitoring radar in Colorado at the point of my destination. I was aware that the MX-20 is now an orphan and don't know which unit I will go to if mine goes down and can't be fixed by my avionics shop. Considering the price, it is probably still a viable option with one caveat. DON'T BUY ONE ANYWHERE EXCEPT A REPUTABLE AVIONICS SHOP. You are going to have to have some support and professional advice. I don't know what that will add to the final cost and may put it out of reach, but getting an unknown unit off ebay doesn't make sense. Lots of pilots are going to hand carried units like the 696, but you do so with limitations. A good, panel mounted MFD is a very useful and desireable tool. Just not cheap. Jgreen

Rob, A hail dent is simply a stretch of the spot in the aluminum. Aluminum and steel behave differently to being stretched and aluminum has almost no "recover" characteristics. Once stretched, it's done. There are a lot of airplanes flying around with minor cosmetic hail damage. From my experience, it has to get pretty severe to affect the flying characteristics. I once bought a Musketeer as an instrument trainer for my boys and completely missed very light hail damage on the airplane. You could not see it without a reflection from bright sunshine and the day I inspected it, it was cloudy; to my chagrin. I do know of instances where an airplane was bondoed and painted and the new owner didn't find it out until years later when they had the airplane repainted. It came as a pretty big surprise. Jgreen

I simply can't believe that anyone with $69m or access to $69m would be stupid enough to buy this airplane. The logical portion of the discussion about this airplane ended with the words, "salvage value"; in my opinion. It is a perfect example of why clean, well maintained aircraft, with no red flags, are worth every penny of the top dollar they command. The sad thing is that this is an example of what is happening to the GA fleet. Enjoy it boys. We are in the last "great days" of general aviation. Jgreen

The simple habit of limiting all banks to a maximum of 30 degrees in the pattern, would save a lot of lives. Jgreen

As per my previous post, depending on the damage done by a swallowed valve, the vibration can be unmanageable. Jgreen

I've had two in my 51 years of flying. I started at age eleven. The first was in 1974 in a Cherokee 6. Swallowed a valve, did some piston damage, set up incredible vibration. Will be the subject of "I Learned About Flying From That" in the coming June issue of Flying mag. Second was a broken fuel line on a Maule. Fortunately, made it to an airport both times. Had several other "issues" but could maintain altitude those other times. I'm not paranoid, but I am always aware that it can happen. Complacency is never appropriate in an airplane. Jgreen

Scott, The points I remember are that the marketing boys were always touting speed which means "best power" and the customer service department didn't want to deal with complaints about rough running engines. Over the years, I've seen many a pilot who would go out and buy, for cash, a new airplane who would literally be challenged by "mixture in" to crank and "mixture off" to stop. I watched a 200 hour student pilot (he soloed at 80 hours) flying a brand new Skylane (that he bought for cash) fly it straight into the runway one bright Saturday morning in 1982. Ripped off the nose gear, bent the prop backwards, buckled the fuselage and when I got to the airplane asked me if there was a mechanic on the field to fix the airplane because he needed to fly to Memphis that afternoon. Swear to god. I wish that was the only story like that I can recall. No, I think the manufacturer might have made a good marketing decision with KISS. Jgreen

Scott, Yes, I took the online course. I would like to go to the seminar and may. I think there is a lot of understanding that would come from the questions and answers that you would be able to listen in on. As to Lycoming's guidance; I thought APS gave some excellent "observations". Their conservative approach was indeed likely driven by marketing and the fact that the injectors were not that closely balanced from the factory. I am assuming, of course, that you have heard all the APS explanations. As for the Lyc Operator's Manual, I think that if you study it closely, you will get a good understanding of your engine and it's capabilities ROP. There is no doubt that running LOP requires a good understanding of the operation and handling of your engine and there is also no doubt that I've seen a lot of pilots who could afford an airplane that simply wouldn't have the "skills" to manage an engine LOP. To be fair to the engine manufacturers, they took the course of reasonable least resistance based upon the cross section of their engine users. Jgreen

Scott, I have experimented with LOP and can get the Bravo to run smoothly, but--------- The but is that I lose a lot of power and speed, more I think than should be a reasonable trade off. I did my lean peak test relatively low power settings, 2400/27", so as to not run my TIT's too high. My peaks spread was 14.6 on first to lean and 14.1 on the last. The guys at APS said that was close enough, but I think not. So, at this point, I'm just going to keep on doing what has worked so well for me to date. I lean to 1650, which the Lyc Operator's Manual and POH say is best power though like another poster said, at low power, peak will come before 1650. I may adjust my GAMI's once more, to tighten up the low and high cylinders a bit and try again. But you know, 175-180 knots at 14 gph is nothing to cry about. The saving of fuel from that point is really irrelevant to me, I just want to preserve my engine. Like I said in a previous post, my compressions are absolutely like a fresh engine, so I must be doing something right. Jgreen

Jetdriven, What's your take on Gordon's situation and the turbo? Jgreen

Gordon, I just took/am taking the Advanced Pilot Seminar online course. They are the guys that teach LOP operation. I learned a great deal, but not enough. I have a lot of questions that I have been saving until I fully complete the course. They aren't promoting Voodoo. They back up everything they say with the most complete engine operation statistics you can imagine. They have one of the most advanced dianostic engine test cells in the world with more data feed than you can imagine. They basically show that engine wear and longevity are mostly tied to CHT's and cylinder pressure than EGT. One thing you will bring away from it is a satisfaction that LOP, properly done, probably puts less stress on the engine than any other mode of operation. That said, I have tried it on my Bravo as it has GAMI's and yes, it works, but not enough improvement over my "old" power settings (the one's I gave you) to be worth the trouble. I get the "sense" that EGT's are the least of your worries in engine operation; CHT's and cylinder pressure being the most important. There seem to be a lot of variables as to the EGT's an engine monitoring system reports. One thing is for sure, the temps at the turbo are a long way from the cylinder. I also "think" that a turbo is like a car engine. On a water cooled engine it operates at about 210 degrees forever. At 240, it is going to fail. I don't believe that 1650 hurts the Bravo turbocharger. That is my take, at least. I will present this scenario, question directly to the folks at APS and get their response. Do you have a 6 point engine monitor? One thing is certain; at the fuel burns you reported, you are pushing a lot of unburned fuel out your exhaust. Jgreen

Andy, SSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. Overgross is illegal !!!!! FYI, at 62, Karen really is a size 6. Jgreen