johnggreen

Don, The two part epoxy, properly installed, is the "Cadillac" application. It is expensive and done correctly very labor intensive. Yes, I have it in my hangar, 4200 s.f., but probably would not do it again all things considered. We have done other installations in some of our rental properties for commercial/light industrial tenants, and a couple of years ago, I did it in both my garages at my home. Sherwin Williams makes a very good product and will have the proper installation techniques and tools should you be foolish enough to do it yourself. Don't let that statement scare you off. You can, if patient, do it yourself, just be ready to work your butt off. You must be very careful installing it on a "new" concrete floor that has not FULLY cured, meaning most of the moisture has leached out of it. On any concrete, new or old, you will have to acid etch it, twice, completely wash it off and let it dry again. There are some latex products out there that I have seen others do in small retail areas that get a lot of traffic and hard use and saw good results. The easiest, and most practical is simply a floor sealer; though when you do that, you rule out other options later as most products will not bind to the sealed concrete. First thing; go talk to the guys at Sherwin Williams and ask them for the name of an applicator who might give you some pointers should you make this a do it yourself project. If light in you hangar is an issue, check the light reflection tables that they have with their industrial enamels. You will be surprised as to what reflects light and what doesn't. Jgreen

If you do a mag check on a Bravo at any altitude, you will see TIT's sky rocket. Be careful. Jgreen

Tim, It has always been my "understanding" that Bravo mags will begin to give trouble at about 400 hours from rebuild. Now, remember this is hearsay, shop talk, and perhaps an "old wives tale", but it came to me from mechainics with years of maintaining Bravos. I don't take any chances. After 300 hours, I have mine rebuilt or install rebuilt mags. It is my experience that if you have a mechanic truly knowledgeable with the mag, the parts are only $30 or $40 and it takes maybe an hour. That is a lot cheaper than the rebuilt mags. The last time I had mine done, January 2012, I did not have access to such a mechanic so I "paid the piper" and bought rebuilts. Don't remember the price but about $400 each comes to mind. That may not be palatable, but it beats being 600 miles away from home with a dead mag. First thing I would suggest is to check your logs and determine how many hours since the rebuild. Jgreen

Before I continue with the "intended" point of this thread, let me say to whomever took my very sarcastic and caustic humor (admitted) personally, I am sorry. Had I been reading that original post, I would not have considered myself either an idiot or a fool and can't imagine taking offense; my error. I honestly regret that anyone would take what I said as a personal insult. OK, you may consider that as my apology. I will consider it ended. If you do not care to read my posts from here on out, then, please don't. I will say, in my defense, that I have successfully bought and sold many airplanes. I have not during that time had one purchaser ever register dissatisfaction or complaint. I fairly and honestly represented each airplane and treated everyone who called courteously. I did end negotiations with a few who were simply wasting my time and will not hesitate to do so again. Now, let me say something positive. This weekend, I flew the Bravo to Lincoln, NE with one of my sons and my wife. I had to download fuel going with three people to meet gross weight, but then I only burned 50 gallons at low power settings. Just over three hours to Lincoln. We dealt with a little turbulence, shot an approach, and landed ready to meet his fiance' and go to the CWS first game. On landing back home this afternoon, I turned to my wife and said simply, "flying greatly enhances our lives". It is a wonderful asset; meaning both the Bravo and the pilot's license. The Bravo continues to amaze me. It's capability, dependability, and integrity give me a secure feeling. In seven and one half years of ownership, it hasn't failed me in any way. As my wife and I consider the move back to a twin, I have rarely been so conflicted. We need room and useful load but at what costs? As for what to move to? The debate has been pretty narrowed at this point. The only single that I could afford and that would add capability would be the Mirage. Believe it or not, the #1 twin in consideration is to refurbish a Twin Bonanza. I flew one for almost 8 years in the 80's and early 90's and it is, in my opinion, the single best airplane ever built. A Baron would be the distant third choice. All that being said, leaving the comfort (in terms of ownership and reliability) of the Bravo will not come easily. Then, there is always the argument of keeping the Bravo and when you need room and useful load, "Delta is ready when you are". Jgreen

Ken, The parts number supplied by Mooney was for the shorter leads and that's what we got. The longer lead probe was installed, but we had plenty of wire. Just to be sure, we insulated the wire from lead to connection and it worked fine. My mechaninc couldn't understand the longer lead as just about every other airplane he works on has the shorter leads and the probe is in a lot hotter and tighter area than the Bravo. In fact, sitting right next to the Bravo was a Cessna Ram 340. it had the shorter leads and talk about a hot box of a nacelle ! If you think the Bravo looks tight, relax. Actually, Mooney quoted $500 for the longer lead, not $400, but did not have any in stock nor the the aftermarket supplier so we didn't have much choice. Jgreen

Yep, it was time! Had the new probe put in today and my old one was pretty corroded. I checked TIT's at a given power setting and fuel flow going to the shop and again coming back with the new probe; about 50 degrees difference. This probe had 600 since being changed over and that was too long. From now on, it's going to be a 300 hour replacement item. If a guy was regularly flying his Bravo at high power settings, the 50 degree error could be a real issue. Fortunately, I almost never fly at more than 65%; which may be why I didn't catch the lower temps earlier. As for the cool down fellows, it's not a do or die issue to me. It only takes 45 seconds or so for my TIT's to stabilize once I come to full idle and rich mixture so it just makes me happy. Jgreen

Ben, I too have always understood that the turbo cool down issue was oil related. At any rate, it is almost never an issue as my TIT's stabilize in less than a minute. I think it will be very interesting if we can collate maintenace data on at least a handful of Bravos. If we see a particular issue pop up numerous times, then it gives us a heads up as to what to watch. Today, I had my TIT probe replaced as I suspected I was getting slightly lower readings. It was definitely corroded. The first one was replaced at 400 hrs. and this one had 600 which is toooooo long. Had I been in the habit of using higher power settings, I would have been running my engine on the brink of the limit of temps. Thankfully, I don't. In fact, my customary use of lower power settings is probably why I didn't notice the worn TIT probe sooner. It must be a different world flying in Europe, but certainly interesting considering some of the scenery. I think my wife and I are coming over before too long, probably to Paris. We'll keep in touch and maybe we could fly over, or train over, for lunch one day. Take care. Jgreen

Chuck, I'm with you as I just posted on another Bravo thread. I think the cool down is beneficial but don't want to belabor or argue the point. Now, as to the "squawk sheet". It was raining today, thank Heavens, so I stayed at home and took care of business on the phone and computer. I also pulled my Bravo logs and detailed every significant entry of maintenance the airplane has had in 1000 hrs of operation. I did not include "adjustments" or Service Bulletins etc. We all have that. I put in everything that broke, as well as replacement of most wear items. Overall, I was pretty impressed with how little has been done to the airplane. A lot of the replacement of wear items was premature, but that's me. I try to learn the MTBF, mean time between failure, of all wearable items and replace them at about 75% of the MTBF. Four things stood out. Now, remember, that I bought the airplane when it was four years old and had 400 hours on the hobbs. Of the things that stood out, all all started before my ownership. Two were never fully satisfied until after I owned the airplane. The first item is that the airplane initially went through batteries about every two years. I actually think this may have been the owner's fault for not using #1 and #2 on alternate flights. Then, apparantly, he didn't understand to check to be sure the fuse on the trickle charge between the systems wasn't blown. That fuse is a weak spot, but at least a simple weak spot to deal with. Also, take note that there is one light in the cabin that will stay on when the master is off. It's right at your left hand and easy to bump on. it will kill a battery in about three days. Secondly, the TKS system leaked. It was "worked on" at least three times before I got the airplane. When it started leaking on me, rather badly during a cross country, when I got home I pulled the belly to see for myself. I called the company and they PDF'ed me a diagram of the system and were very helpful with figuring out the problem. The problem was that the shops that had worked on it before, including a MSC, did not use the correct parts. It was nothing but leaking fittings, but the fittings are not generic. Only factory parts will work and must be installed with special factory supplied swedges; which cost about $120 for each size. I fixed it, took it to my shop, not a MSC, and went over all I had learned. They inspected my work and signed it off. I gave them the tools for the swedges. Third. The airplane had three master cylinders installed before I got it. I had troulbe too. The MSC "fixed" it to no avail. It was soon after that I started using my old shop. Kevin Rushing worked on it, got the system properly bled, which is a chore, and the brakes have worked perfectly now for over 400 hours. We did put on new brake pads at 768 hours. Finally, the right tank started leaking at about 200 hours. It was repaired three times, once by a shop in St. Louis, and twice by the MSC, one as a pre-buy and once after my ownership. It started leaking again. This time, my shop, resealed the tank, apparantly correctly, and I've had no further issues. I did replace #2 cylinder at 879 hours. It was a worn valve guide and most likely this was the result of a manufacturing defect. No big deal. I will also note that the speed brakes have been rebuilt twice. It seems that comes about every 500 hours. Everything else is run of the mill. To date, considering the number of systems this airplane carries, it has been a very reliable and "relatively" economical aircraft to own. Jgreen

Jose', I think you are right. I just never noticed it before. Kind of like flying over water. You hear bumps and misses you never heard before. Jgreen

My shop called and has my new TIT probe in hand; about $130 material cost. I'm taking the Bravo over tomorrow to have it installed. I just went through my logs and saw that the original was replaced at about 400 hours so this one now has about 600 on it. As to the advisability of cooling down the turbo. My TIT temps fall almost 200 degrees, high 900's to low 800's during the time after I stop the airplane, come to full idle and provide rich mixture; it usually takes about 45 to 60 seconds to stabilize. I have always observed cool downs so I don't have personal experience with not doing it. I do have personal experience with a couple of pilots who don't; one flew a Seneca and the other a Chancellor. They both went through turbos like corn through a goose. Every piece of equipment I have at the ranch, tractors, dozer, excavators and trucks, recommends a cool down. Some of the times they suggest are excessive and unreasonable. At the least, I always bring the engine to idle for ten seconds to let the turbo spool down. You can easily hear the turbo on a diesel engine whining after quick shut down, when there is no oil flowing to the unit. The drop in TIT on the Bravo indicates to me that it is a reasonable practice and it's not much trouble as I'm securing everything in the cockpit so I certainly intend to continue. I'm going to check TIT at a specific power setting and fuel flow going over and then coming back with the new TIT. it will be interesting to see if and how much difference. Jgreen

To update my original post. I have flown twice since the post. The first was a cross country, fighting thunderstorms, meaning, avoiding thunderstorms, and I didn't take time to experiment. Yesterday, I went out to check out a couple of things for a long cross country later this week and I tried low power under various RPM settings. Right after take off, I leveled off at 1200' and pulled the power back to 22". The prop rpm initially lowered slightly from 2400. After moving the prop setting to 2200 and then back to 2400, everything went back to normal. Then, I could lower my MP to the mid teens without an issue. I'm thinking that I may not be exercising the prop enough before takeoff, perhaps? I could understand this issue at 40 degrees but not at 90. Also, I never noticed the issue until I had the prop overhauled 25 hours ago. Jgreen

Ben and Ken, I called my shop and they are ordering me a new probe. I flew yesterday to check everything out for an upcoming long cross country and if I saw lower temps, it was not by much. From your posts about the frequency of replacement of probes and Ben's note on another post that the first owner of his airplane replaced turbos three times, again, I wonder if the longevity of both isn't tied to cool down procedures. Pure speculation, but I am diligent in following the cool down procedure on my airplane. Jgreen

Ben, If you get a chance, put that chronologically and with engine hours in a document and attach it to an email to me. The replacement of turbos would indicate that the previous owner wasn't allowing the turbo to cool down before shut down. My airplane, for the hours of use, 1000, may be a little low on replacement of wear items like you noted. I fly 3+ hour cross country almost exclusively. Not much start up, shut down, landings etc. Good info and hopefully you will have time to detail it. Jgreen

Bravo Owners, When I asked that Bravo owners be given their own section in Mooneyspace, my goal was simple and obvious; to have a forum that specifically addressed Bravo maintenance and operation issues. I have been very pleased with the results. We have certainly had a sharing of info that has been beneficial to date. The most interesting thing to me is that there has been no deluge of issues, and certainly we haven't turned up any achilles heal of the airplane. As I have learned in my seven years of ownership, the Bravo is a very reasonable plane to operate and fly from every aspect. This reality flies in the face of the "aviation urban myths" about Bravo maintenance issues. The Bravo is straight forward with all operational/maintenance pertaining to its "systems". I think it fairly states the operationg of the Bravo to simply point out that it has lots of systems and dual everything. Every system, be it turbocharging, oxygen, TKS, dual alternators, dual vacuum systems, speed brakes. extensive avionics (for most airplanes) etc. It does share some quirky systems common to all Mooneys, the landing gear donuts and flying tail to mention two. Forgive my wordiness, but I think the point I was addressing is valid; Bravo maintenance is nothing special or unusual, or particularly unique compared to a M20C or V tailed Bonanza. The systems simply create a lot of areas to maintain. Since the opening of this Bravo section, I have had an idea and would like the input of other Bravo owners. I would propose that each of us review our logs and note any "special" maintenance issues that we have had to address. We could simply list each and every item addressed and truthfully that would not really be a big task. It would be interesting, for instance, to see how often we change tires, replace donuts, etc., but I also think that each of us will probably uncover items that are not everyday issues that we could high light for other owners. Personally, starting sometime this week, I'm going to go through my logs and list every single item of maintenance ever performed on my airplane. Think about this and offer suggestions, or just start listing your own log entities. I would suggest that you create a document that you can attach and email. I would offer to receive them and compile a"master" list of items that Bravo owners address. From this, we may find a few items that we would each want our mechanics to eyeball at annual time. This may be an excellent start for a "new", updated article on the Bravo by the Aviation Consumer. I suspect the would love for someone to do the leg work for another article. In fact, I'll contact them about exactly that. What are your thoughts? Jgreen

On my last cross country flight, eight days ago, I noticed what I thought were lower TIT's for the settings. I was flying higher than normal power settings because I was low, 10m, and trying to make time around an area of thunderstorms. Higher meaning only 2400/30" as I ususally fly at less so maybe it's just me. That being said, it never occurred to me that a TIT probe could have a mtbf of only around a thousand hours. I'm going to order a new one today as my Bravo has just now passed the 1000 hour mark. What mtbf have other's experienced and what were the failure indications. Thanks for the heads up. Jgreen

Honestly fellows chill out, Can you seriously not see the tongue in cheek in that post? Some of you certainly can't. Everything is serious and every post is a potential threat. The most mysterious thing is that many take offense that someone, somewhere, may actually have some experiences that give them a different perspective. There are some really, really fragile egos here, Scottfromiowa being only one. He is personally offended by a flippant, intended to be humorous post, by someone who lives 700 miles from him, who he has never met, and who had never made a personal comment (much less slighting comment) toward him. I think it really boils down to if you are looking for an insult, you will certainly be able to find one. I could have never fathomed that this post would be taken as it was by some. Scott appears to be offended that anyone would think of owning an airplane bigger or heaven-for-bid "better" than a Mooney. It must drive him crazy to see a successful businessman/pilot taxi up in a Cessna Mustang. Hell, I don't know. It's all so damn childish that I would tend to take Scott's offer to leave the site except it's not his or anyone elses privilege to tell anyone to leave because they don't like or agree with his perspective; it is extraordinarily immature. Bryan is the exact opposite. He and I have disagreed and agreed at various times like he said. He can even say, "John, you are wrong". He isn't hurt, or offended, in fact, he is, if anything, intrigued. And Bryon, for the record, I would very much like to meet you face to face someday. I think we would be friends. In closing, I will say a couple of more things. My "observations" on selling airplanes is quite accurate. 80% of the people who call you will be talkers, not buyers. They will make the "selling" effort both enormous and oftentimes unpleasant. Secondly, as long as I make no personally disparaging remarks, I have the right to my views and according to the rules of this site, the right to express them. If some fragile personality sitting behind some nameless computer chooses to disagree, IGNORE THE POST. As for telling me to get off the site, **** you. It's power that you imagine but do not actually possess, but then, that is the problem with these faceless, nameless on-line posts. You can pretend to be a lot of things that you will never be in real life. At least, I am man enough to sign my posts and always have. Jgreen

Scottfromiowa, Stange! You would base your purchase of an airplane on whether you are insecure with the the owner and not the quality of the airplane. I've noticed that you often express a terribly emotional, sensitive, and fragile ego. That is really not my fault. Jgreen No 51 today. Today it's all cardio.

Randy, From the few specs you list, you are offering a very nice airplane at a very reasonable price. I wish you the best with finding the real buyers. I just posted a thread on "the thrill of the buy and the agony of the sale". Actually, I did it a little tongue in cheek and with a smile, but there is a lot of truth in it. Good luck. Jgreen

Many of you know me, at least from my posts. And you know that I don't mind "speaking my mind". And, unfortunately, that often means I offend, but like my grandmother used to tell me, "nothing offends like the truth". So put on your thick skins and let's go. I have owned my Bravo for seven years now. It is number 31 of 32 airplanes I have owned in my flying career. It has in its seven years full filled its desired mission as well as any airplane I have ever owned. That being said, my mission is changing. With my last child to get out of "higher" education in the next twelve months, their settling down in one spot, having my grandchildren (one on the ground now) etc., my mission is going to change to more passengers, more room, and more useful load. I have NO brand loyalty, but I truly enjoy flying the Bravo and it's capability, reliability, and economy have been phenomenal. In spite of this, I'm going to speculate that sometime within the next twelve months, I'm going to purchase a, forgive me, twin. Having owned 32 airplanes, that means I have bought 32 and sold 30 as I own two now. In addition, three years ago, I sold two aircraft for the estate of my best friend, at no charge. I think I talked to around 60 people to sell those two aircraft, no more than 5 were legitimate buyers, but there is nothing new about that. The rest wanted to talk airplanes, or talk about what they thought they wanted to buy, or make ridiculous offers to see if I was crazy or desperate. Some, I think were just lonely. I was kind and considerate to all but one who actually came to "look". After two days of "entertaining" him, I sent his dumb ass back to Nebraska without any polite ado. Interestingly, in buying 32 airplanes, I had a A&P/IA do a pre-buy on no more than 5. I did have maybe that many pre-buys on some that I turned down. Though not an A&P, give me 20 minutes with the logs, 60 minutes inspecting the airplane, and 30 minutes flying it and I'll know with a 90% surity whether I want the airplane or not. I've been around equipment and airplanes all my life and I've learned the "basics". In those 27 or so airplanes I bought without a professional pre-buy, I missed one cylinder. Had it rebuilt for $1200 and flew the airplane for four years without spending another maintenance dime. So, at some point, I'm going to put my Bravo on the market. It will sell to some intelligent, lucky buyer. Unfortunately, I'll have to talk to 30 idiots to find him. I truly DO NOT look forward to that! I'm afraid that this time, I may have a scarcity of patience, but I promise, I will try to persevere. When an aircraft is flown regularly by the same pilot, who can afford the airplane, whose wife is a passenger almost every time, with logs that exemplify that every wear item is replaced before its mean time between failure, well anybody but a fool should be able to discern something from that. Some won't. Most won't. I can hardly wait for the idiot who proposes that I take it to a Mooney shop with a blank check to fix any discrepency they find. I assure you that will end the discussion. I can also hardly wait for the fool who proposes that something is wrong with the airplane because I haven't taken it to a Mooney shop. Or the one who can't make up his mind as to whether he wants turbocharging or naturally aspirated, or TKS or not, or maybe a Bonanza. They will all be there vying for my time. Most simply won't be able to afford the airplane but maybe, just maybe, I'm crazy, or desperate and will make them a Christmas gift. Buying the twin will be a cake walk though due to the average age of twins today, I'm pretty sure a detailed pre-buy will be in the offering. If it comes, when it comes, I just hope I can maintain my cherub like demeanor and politely suffer the fools who are bound to call, but honestly, I dread the prospect. Jgreen

The last 8-10 or so post (along with others scattered about) in this thread have exhibited the kind of reasoned, restrained thought that creates and exemplifies good (meaning safe) pilots. Sometimes I come across as a little harsh, but if you will look at those post with a unbiased eye, I only become "harsh" in the face of cavalier attitudes about pilotage. Forgive me, again, I do not wish to insult, but at my point in life, I've seen lots of good pilots, lots of bad pilots, and lots of dead pilots. I have lost several good friends and acquaintances to bad pilot judgement. I've also seen truly incompetent pilots, with little skill and no real experience, endanger innocent people by their actions. One of those actions is to claim knowledge and experience that they didn't have in front of "impressionalbe" low time pilots. I have many times been left speechless as the stupidity and ignorance (there is a difference) of some of the "hangar talK' I have heard over the years. Perhaps, some of my "attitude" comes from having my CFII. No, it's no big deal, it doesn't make my Sky King, Bob Hoover, or Werner Von Braun. It does impose upon me some responsibility to point out dangerous or inappropriate behaviour, I think. So let's fly safe. Let's be sure that our actions and words further responsible and safe pilotage. OK, no more posts to this thread from me. Thank all of you for your output and wisdom. You said it, I just made you say it. Jgreen

First of all, when I say "the book", I'm not referring to a particular POH, or regulation, I'm referring to those accepted parameters of pilot operations that are taught and observed by most pilots as being safe flying practices. Our POH's whether for a 1965 C model or a 2008 Acclaim leave a great deal to be desired. Move into heavier faster iron, fly for a scheduled carrier, fly a 320 Air Bus and the "book" will indeed be quite specific as will the company regualtions as to its operation. Violate that "book" and you will no longer have the priviledge of operating at all. I have flown a myriad of airplanes for 52 years under many different conditions. I have, on numerous times, been faced with landing the Bravo in gusty 40 knot quartering winds and once in Omaha had to land with winds gusting to 50 knots and the ATIS reporting, warning, of 50 knot wind shears on the airport. My final approach, with no flaps, was 100 knots and I made one of the smoothest landings I have ever made in the airplane. Skill? I'm not that egotistical. Everything went right. Most of which was not really within my control. I did have the advantage of a runway that was aligned within 15 degrees of the reported wind. Had that runway not been available, I would have diverted to an airport with an aligned runway. I suppose that where I differ from so many on this site is that after flying since I was eleven years old, and accumulating over 6000 hours in over 50 types of airplanes, it is my limitations that I recognize, not my skills. Jgreen

OR75, Excellent point and one I wanted to address but I had already loaded my post with points that some might take as insults. Again, I do not wish to berate or insult. So if you must wonder about my motivation it is, and will always, be this. Many, many novice pilots read these blogs. They don't know what to take with a grain of salt and what is the "gospel'. It therefore scares me that "innocents" may completely misconstrue a particular thread and fly accordingly. Forgive me, but I am truly a "by the book" pilot and have been for a long time. Flying is a very dangerous vocation and avocation with a fatality rate pretty much equal to riding a motorcycle. We take the risk. That being said, doing it "by the book" will give even the most incompetent of us a margin of safety when we most need it. Once when I was 24, I threw the book out and went on an ill-advised flight. I almost killed 6 people. You can read about it in Flying magazine this month under, "I LEARNED ABOUT FLYING FROM THAT". You can see it online without a subscription at flyingmag.com CASE IN POINT. Yesterday I flew from my home base in North Central Mississippi to a small airport just outside Knoxville to pick up one of my sons. One the way back, a cluster of high intensity thunderstorms was right in my way. There was a hole about 15 miles wide with a much less severe storm to my left. Did I take it? No. The "book" says give a thunderstorm a 20 mile birth. I could see clear air on the other side. What did I do? I took a left turn around all of it. Flew south toward Tuscaloosa. Added 25 minutes to my flight. So what? I'm not trying to prove my manhood with my Bravo. Yes, I have WSI and stormscope and center advising me, but, I did it by the book and will continue to do so. If you want to see my track, go to flightaware. N21448. As for the macho side of me, at 63 I can do a one legged squat with either leg, 50 pushups, 100 situps, and work most 20 year olds in the ground. So, don't take my observations personally. I really don't want to read about you in a NTSB accident report. OK? Jgreen

Yes, sometimes pilots are faced with in flight scenarios that they have no option but to "address". There are a multitude of reasons for a crosswind component, and if you ignore it long enough, you will probably become an "incident". With a landing gear that has almost no shock absorbing movement compared to the the spring gear of a Cessna or the hydraulic action of a Beech, I can only shudder at the thought of the side loads imposed on the Mooney gear and wing connection points in a severe cross wing landing. Mooney must consider that a weak point as they actually have a landing weight on the heavier Ovations, Bravos, and I assume, Acclaims where they specifically caution in the POH about side loads generated from "heavy" landings. I have no doubt that many leaking wing issues can be traced directly to hard landings and strong crosswind landings. All this being said, the most disturbing point is the cavalier attitude that I see from low time, barely experienced pilots who think themselves to be such a rare cross between Bob Hoover and Sky King that just because they don't "understand" why the manufacturer and FAA put limitations on the flight parameters of their airplanes that they should just disregard those limitations. A similar thread and attitude cropped up here several months ago over VNE's and gross weight limitations. I would also point out that most members of this blog are flying airplanes 30, 40, and 50 years old that have been owned by multiple persons of questionable flying skills and usually subjected to the minimum of maintenance that can be had. I am not trying to embarrass or insult anyone. I am pointing out that complacency kills and this site is absolutely full of complacency. That's all. Sorry if I offend. Jgreen

OK, you caught me. I am 63.152. + or - .051. Jgreen

As for statistics; I'm 90% sure that I'm full of "it" 90% of the time. If I have learned ANYTHING in my 63 years it's that the single biggest personal mistake any of us can make is to take ourselves or anyone else too seriously. I'm 88.89% sure of that. By the way, my Bravo cruises 200 knots on about 11 gph, with some statistical variation of course. Jgreen