AndyFromCB

"As to the seat belts, the Acclaim does have the airbag belts and that too me is pretty cool. I'll take that over the 4 point belt. Not sure what the seat certification buys you. Have there been lots of cases of Mooney seats busting loose? Don't forget the steel cage. I'll take the cage and aluminum over the plastic in a crash myself. " Tell that to formula 1 drivers or Diamond DA40 drivers. Properly designed composite structure is a ton safer than anything you can build from steel and/or aluminum. Cirrus hasa 4 point harness with an airbag as well and it keeps you a much better position to be protected by such airbag than a 3 point harness. The panel is much father away and there is not yoke to break your face. As to 26g seats, goes a long way towards preventing injuries as well, especially lower back injuries during landing accidents. Like I said before, I love my mooney, but it is what it is. An airframe stretched to its maximum potential at this point with no future. Same can be said about A36 or most Cessnas.

Honda would be a wrong comparison. We are talking about very rarified world here: people who can drop $700K on a toy. Most of that crowd drives a bmw/mb/lexus, not a porsche. They are willing to give up last 5% of performance for %100 percent increase in comfort and utility. You can't have a sustainable company on 10 aircraft sales per year.

There has to be some sort electrical gremlin in the system. Simply disconnect the battery terminals and do a simply resistance test between the two terminals with everything off. It should read zero, well, actually infinity. Not the battery terminals but the cables going to it. As to alternator loads, pretty common "problem", the way the dual voltage regulator functions, is in slave/master mode, so both alternators are actually running of a single section of the voltage regulator board so depending on alternator, one does more work than the other. Both feed the buss at the same time, so it should have no effect on charging whatsoever. But that should have no effect on charging capabilities. As to Gills, it's a crap shoot. My current set is just fine after a year and half. Went thru 3 replacements in just 6 months before this set. They would last about 2 weeks, just like yours.

Hey, I'm not knocking Mooney down ;-) I love my Bravo, all in with new engine and rest of the items brought to almost new condition under $200K for 200knot bird, I'm a pretty happy camper. However, $700K for an Acclaim. No way. If I wanted new, I'd buy a Cirrus, if I wanted used, I'd buy a Meridian. Mooney needs a complete new design and I don't think they have the cash or talent in house. As to the pipe dreams of barebones M20J for $300K, they are just that. That is not what buyers want. Turbo charged Cirrus or Cessna 206 out sell their lower end brothers 6 to 1.

There is not mooney business case other than becoming a TC holder and a reliable parts supplier for old airframes. For $700K, one would have to be mentally challenged to buy a Mooney. Let's see: -800lb or so useful load in new Acclaim if TKSd and air-conditioned -shit for cowling/cooling design -single door -leaky tanks -no landing gear per se -run of the mill G1000 installation -3 point seat belts -no seat certification -no parachute Or let's take a look at Cirrus G5 -1200lb useful load TKSed and air-conditioned i could just stop there

It could be a lot worst. My arrow flew for years and years with hacksaw shorten main spar wing bolts (probably from Ace Hardware) and the nut missing (as in not there) on the wing front attach hardware ;-) Looking over the logbooks it appears to have flown like that since 1983, passed an export certification to Canada, import certification back to USA, countless annuals by a big, big shop in Chicago and then my mechanic finally found it when he noticed a short rivet repair and decided to investigate further.

If you really were of sound mind, you wouldn't be putting around in little airplanes, just saying ;-) Very few people on this board are of sound mind: you can find them in the for sale section.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I love my Mooney but if you Mooney wants to have a business case, they need to redesign the landing gear and up the gross weight. Vs drivers of other aircraft, mooney pilots have to be "super" pilots on landing. It is not a forgiving platform at all. It does not forgive excess speed (easy to do poping out at minimums), it does not forgive flare mistakes (too high or too low), it bounces easily and does not recover with anywhere as much ease as piper, beech or cessna products and it does not forgive any side loading during crosswind landings. You must fly the damn thing all the way until taxi speeds. Landed yesterday at Yankton, SD with 19knot crosswind component without any issues and then forgot to "fly it" for a second right after landing because I have not flown the airplane for 2 months and forgot how touchy it is. Started heading directly towards grass. It's definitely less of a weekend warrior aircraft than others.

Do you fly Do you fly a high altitude aircraft? I'm sure those who do understand exactly what I am talking about. The below was much easier to understand and flight plan

It really comes down to this: you can't take it with you.

Winds aloft feature sucks beyond all belief. What happen to the color bands. They were much easier to understand the flows.

there is more engineering in that landing gear alone than there is in the entire mooney airframe ;-) but yes, that's where a SETP shines and where Mustang drops the ball. High altitude/high temperature short runway operations. Truth is that it actually has shorter take off/landing distance than a TBM but due the balanced field requirements, the numbers are much higher on paper. However, operating it like that totally destroys any safety advantage of two engines. Here is a short field landing:

I agree completely with the above statement with the exception of one airplane, actually easier to fly than even the TBM: Cessna Mustang. A single engine failure is a total non-event. About 20 lbs of pressure on the rudder, lower the nose a bit, trim the pressure away and fly away, still doing 1000fpm. The rest of the speeds that matter are very close to a high performance single. Approaches are done in the mid 90s so no different than a Bravo coming down an ILS. But the real world operating costs are about 2.5 times what a TBM will run flying 120 to 150 hours a year if you add it all up. Plus like a mentioned before, you a severely weight limited at higher elevation/higher temperature fields. One requires a type rating, the other doesn't, but the truth is, after talking with my agent, it really doesn't matter. By the time you're done with your TBM training, you will be flying to type rating standards. If insured, both will require a 3 day refresher annually. Mustang will also require an annual "check ride". But if can't pass it, you should not be flying anyway.

A few things: -GFC700 with Envelope Protection -Highway in the sky -Engine monitoring/systems integration -Dual GPS/ILS/Comm -Ability to define a custom hold. For a king air, it's not really a 10x increase form G600 to G1000, more like 2x if you go with dual G600 and dual GTN750, GWX70 and GTS850. That package installed runs about $200K. When you're spending that kind of money, might as well drop another $200K to have total system reliability with a new autopilot.

The G1000 install is about $400K. However you look at it, a KA200 is about $300K (not including capital costs) a year aircraft which is way out of my company's league. There is a point where unless one flies about 400 hours per year, charter just makes sense. The KA200 we charter a few times per year runs $1100 an hour. Sometimes I wonder whether or not it would just be much cheaper to get a fun plane like an older Husky to screw around in and just charter trips. It works great for business but sucks for vacations because then you end up paying for deadhead legs. One area where a twin turboprop really smokes any single engine machine is ability to handle winter winds. I've been in KA200 in WY, CO, KS, SD and ND landing in 50knot winds. Would not want to try in an aircraft that stalls at 61knots or lower. A non event in the KA200 other than the urge to throw up. I'm a terrible passenger, get really sick in airplanes when I'm not flying so there is nothing for me to focus on. Mooney kills me as passenger with the bathtub feeling.

Two ways of looking at it: -fly an new airplane that depreciates at a rate of 300K a year but you get to write 800K a year off income for next 5 years or -pay the tax man 300K a year It's a wash if you have the income and a business case but if the first case, you have a awesome time machine. In the second case you have 500K left after the IRS to look at No way, a KA200 with G1000 is going to be anywhere between 2 and 3 million

550lb full fuel useful load. Yes, it's a 2 adults, 2 young kids aircraft.

I know, trust me, looking at Meridians too. I only need about 700nm of reliable west IFR range and a Meridian can do that too. What I like about the TBM having have flown one is close to 400knot ground speeds in descent heading east and the pilot door. What kills you on the meridian is insurance. Close to 2% of hull value first year vs 1.2% for TBM.

If you want an airplane that has to make a fuel stop every hour, sure, because it does with 4 people on board.

something to be said for walking up to an airplane between annuals and having everything work. There is a good reason why these things cost 80K. To keep that pig in the air and truly airworthy condition, you'll be spending another 80K every six months and still having no dispatch reliability what so ever. There is no such thing as a duke "with good times on the engines". They are ticking time bombs and I'm willing to bet under most conditions, a TBM will have a better single engine out rate of "climb" than a tired, old duke. What's the terminal velocity of a duke in a Vmc rollover ;-) As to cheap older jets, same story. 7 figure inspection invoices are not an exception but a rule. Out of all the old turboprops, only the MU2 can be efficiently maintained as far as I am concerned and offer reliability. Here is an inspection schedule for an older citation encore: Cessna Citation 560 The big problem with the MU2 or a Duke for that matter is the simply fact that I am just not a that good of a stick to ever want to fly one. Too many damn switches/systems, too high of speeds, too much precision involved. Neither is a weekend warrior's airplane. A TBM is. You can not fly for two months like I do all the time, hop in a TBM and feel at home in minutes and then cross the country 5 times in a month and then put it away for another two months.

The Avex matrix is pretty much dead on the money from my research and talking to my two PC-12 owning friends. $356 on fuel sounds like a lot until you take into account that to cover same distance at max speed my Bravo will eat about $240 worth 100LL. My all in engine reserve on the Bravo without any guarantee of making TBO is about $40 an hour. My Bravo's engine has been overhauled 3 (plus a half, if you count splitting the case once due to camshaft issue at 1100 hours) times in 3500 hours. Guaranteed (as in guaranteed by P&W on ESP program) engine reserve on PT6 on the TBM is $100 an hour. Other than the initial price of entry, running a SETP vs a high performance single is not exactly a wash but pretty damn close. The three big hits are hangar, insurance (due to much higher hull value) and recurrent training. That's $50K a year more my Bravo which is a lot money if you're not flying for business a lot.

To spend $3.7 on an aircraft like that one has to have a business need, healthy profits and rather write the check to Socata than the IRS. Then it makes sense. I wonder what kind of pressure that will put on TBM850 w and w/o the G1000. They still seem to be in the 1.7 to 2.5 million range depending on EFIS40 vs G1000 and pilot door vs none. The C2 seemed to have stabilized in the 1.4-1.5 range. And yes, you can buy a Mustang for that but a Mustang budget is closer to $250K a year vs $100K for a TBM for same miles flown. Also, heading west, mustang is a 700nm aircraft, TBM closer to 1100nm. Then there is an issue of high altitude/high temperature departure where Mustang is really weight limited. You have to leave 800lb of fuel on the ground leaving Denver in July. Non issue with a TBM. Granted, one engine out rate of climb beats TBMs ;-) I'll still never fly at night or low IFR so I'm willing to make that trade off.

Wrong and wrong ;-) The fuel per mile is about the same as Bravo if you take the 20% jet A discount into account. And hot section on that engine won't run anymore than 20 to 30K if you don't exceed parameters most of the time. The overhaul, though, will be close to $300K. P&W ESP Lite runs about 100 an hour and covers almost everything but FOD. Insurance covers that. Bravo: 210 at about 22gph = 9.54 nmpg 320 at about 48gph (60gph * .8) = 6.66 nmpg Or 240 at 32gph (40gph * .8) = 7.5 nmpg I'm shopping for a C2 model currently. Insurance was actually quoted a bit less than Bravo percentage wise (about 1.2% vs 1.4%) with no prior turbine and 500TT. 30 hours of mentor time required. All and all, $200 per flight hour is a good estimate for engine, parts and maintenance so about twice what I believe Bravo eats and I have the spreadsheets to prove it. There will be a really well maintained Bravo for sale soon...

If you'd like your camshaft to last more than 1000 hours, I'd strongly recommend it, FAA approved or not

Nobody is saying you've been "directing" annuals. Did you even have this aircraft long enough to do an annual? My question is who did your pre buy for you? Or did you not have a pre buy done? All I am saying is there is a lot of aircraft out there with nothing more than paper annuals.