AndyFromCB

Quote: Cruiser yep, I don't think that guy sitting at the table behind them is really focused on the engine.

Apparently it's not just the engines

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/BRP_Rotax_NewEngine_912iS_206291-1.html Dual direct fuel injection with ECU control and 30% lower fuel consumption with a 10.5:1 compression. Did I mention it runs on autofuel. Even the old carburated rotax managed 10.5:1 just fine on autofuel.

Well, So far 6 M20M have had a failure of the turbo transition V Band Clamp, part #LW-12093-5. Essentially, when this let's go, you end up with 1600 degree exhaust in engine compartment. Mine has about 200 hours on it, hasn't been taken off since. I've got 2 more sitting in the hangar, all magnafluxed to check to micro cracks. My take on this part is, at 200 bucks, if it needs to be taken for maintenance, a new one is going in. Most of failed because of repeated removal and reinstallation. Piper Turbo Saratogas and Lycoming Turbo 206s suffer the same problems. Andy

Probably the same thing as usual, the turbo transition v-clamp. So far we lost 2% of the Bravo fleet to turbo transition related fires. Makes me feel real confident to take my bird up ;-)

Parker and all, I've said it before and I'll say it again, P.K. has some sort of personal vendetta against Aspen. I don't get it. Maybe they didn't give him a discount or special treatment, or something. Not unlike my personal vendetta against Mooney, the worst run company in the world and that includes all the ones I've run and sold over the years ;-) I'm going to add Honeywell to my list too and their POS autopilots. And in the afterlife, hopefully I can catch Al Mooney in hell and explain a thing or two about landing gear design because my lawn mower has considerably better ride. I'm begining to suspect more thought and care went into the design of the servos on my $30 R/C helicopter from Targer than my KFC 150. Spent a whole day working on my tail dragger endorsment. Fun, fun, fun. SD has the basic Aspen. Not once did it get confused doing loops and rolls today. Andy

Mike, I'm still learning so much about IFR flying. Can you describe in a bit more detail that TKS was being overwhelmed? Weather, time of the year, cruise/climb/descent? How does the airplane behave? Do you use any flaps on landing even with TKS keeping up? Andy P.S. All Bravos come with a dual alternator. The only thing you're missing with FIKI is second set of pumps on a Bravo. My is non-FIKI and has the heated stall vane.

Also, I was going to switch both taxi and landing lights to LED. My mechanic told me to only change the landing lights. Now I know why ;-). It's kind of fun to get on top with 2 inches of ice the landing lights, turn on the taxi lights for a few minutes and kick the rudders side to side and see the ice slide off. Andy

Devon, I understand, but even looking at the schematics in the manual, I do not see much of a difference, but you're correct, FIKI is FIKI. Quite frankly, my experience is limited, I've only had the Bravo this winter, about 35 hours since I bought but I've been flying almost daily, last week again IFR without an autopilot. Quite frankly, I think the TKS system when properly primed on the ground and then once again before approach will handle more ice than this pilot wants to deal with. The conditions you are describing, a 2000 foot layer are nothing for the TKS. I mean, you can step climb them in an Arrow (no, I've never done it, I swear), it's the frontal systems is where TKS and turbo shine. So far, the most I've dealt with was a 15 minutes climb to 14,000 from 1,000 at 120knots that was solid ice most of the way with a bit of break in the middle and I was just amazed how clean the airframe stayed on the high setting. I only had to hit the windshield pump twice for about 15 seconds each. I popped up on top fairly clean but still, I feel I pushed my take off a bit too close to a warm front passage.Should have waited another hour or two for the tops to drop down. If you get a Bravo, you will not regret it. I'm sure this one could be had for closer to 165K than the asking price. It's been on the market since early 2011. http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/MOONEY-M20M-BRAVO/1991-MOONEY-M20M-BRAVO/1208027.htm Andy

The entire system has to be redone for a cost of about 48K for FIKI. I called, I cried, I laughed. Then I tracked down the source of pump motors...I also measured the panels on FIKI and non-FIKI. Not one square inch more coverage unlike the Cirrus. Bo is the same a Mooney. No difference between FIKI and non-FIKI.

Quote: dpmatsalla However, with regards to FIKI vs inadvertant, I really do need FIKI. I could never bring myself to fly a non-FIKI into known icing, no matter how good my "chances" were.

Needed to buy the Super D before the Mrs wants children, I assume I won't be buying anything else for next 22 to 30 years ;-) Now I've got a month to finish replumbing the whole house myself otherwise she says it's getting sold and plumber gets called...

Actually, for 180k quite a lot of fine, mid time engine Fiki bravos to be had. They are all selling for about 15 of vRef. BTW, you made a comment that turbo would be nice but not necessary. FIKi without turbo is kind of pointless. The point is to use Fiki to get out of dodge and the turbo makes all the difference there. Even with TKS you want to be to climb at a fast speed and low deck angle. There was a bravo on controller with an asking price of 180, I made an offer on it but it fell thru, it ended up selling for 155. A lot of the Fiki bravos have been on the market for a year or so, make a decent offer and you can end up with one of the most capable airplanes for a lot less than 180. As to Fiki vs inadvertent, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Same tks panels. Andy

Scott, Its kind of a lie to say I don't enjoy flying my Mooney, as they say about sex, even my it's bad its good ;-) I love my bravo for what it is, a personal airliner for poor folk like myself but it's not a blast to go put around in it. It's a single purpose airplane meant to be flown by the numbers, go fast, calculate your landing weight just like a jet, calculate your stall, your approach speed and then it's the most predictable, strongest single engine airframe. And it does great for that purpose. And I get kicks out of that like last Friday coming down to mins at Kcbf during a snow storm, hand flying because my autopilot is out in Tulsa and still flying better than my arrow did when coupled. Like I said before, it's like it's on rails. I love it for that. Put for putting around which i enjoy very much, flying slow, doing short field work, even just doing some steep 360s, it's not a fun airplane to do that. It's slow in the roll, heavy in the elevator, and way too light on the rudder in comparison to the other forces. Just like an airliner I assume. I'll gladly meet you half way in the super d and go burn some fuel but it will be a month or two before I feel comfy taking passengers up, need to get some major instruction first, only flew it for about an hour before buying it, I don't even have my tail wheel endorsement yet. Insurance company wants 15 hours of dual vs 3 in the bravo which I guess makes sense. Kind of hard to kill yourself in a mooney. I'll pm you when I'm ready. Andy

Ross, Cownling/Cooling efficiency has a lot to do with it too. Look at Acclaim/Bravo. Both essentially identical airframes, same horsepower (well, almost), acclaim is almost 20knots faster than the Bravo. I'm not sure the flat plate measurement takes that into account. I know good 5 knots is in the prop alone. Same with the F33A, owned by the way by an individual with initials B.D., not a dentist. If you ever looked at the TA Turbo install vs what's under the cowling on a Bravo, it's a work of art. There is just a lot less cooling drag involved. I top out at about 190knots at 12,000, burning 21.5 per hour. His F33A slowly passes my Mooney, burning 17.4 LOP. My CHTs are in the 360s, his in the 330s. If I had 400K to spend on a toy, I'd take a TKSd TAT A36 anyday over my Bravo. However, for the total of 150K I have invested in 7RD, it's really hard to beat for a mini airliner. Scott, BTW, I am about to close a deal on a Super D, so I'll have my fun airplane that I'll actually enjoy flying. Andy

Actually, the numbers above are not very accurate either. A M20J does not cruise at 170knots. A M20J is a 160knot cruiser. The Arrow II is also not a 143knot cruiser. 135 is more like it. A M20J is always going to smoke an Arrow by about 25knots but you can modify an Arrow to be within about 10knots of a M20J. Let's not forget that all of M20J's speed gain over the M20F was aerodynamic clean up of an already clean airframe. There is a lot more to cleanup on an Arrow. Mine was an honest 135knot cruiser at 6000 verified with 4 way runs. Laminar Flow Systems claimed a gain of between 15 and 26mph for a full kit with wing smoothing. I never got the full gain but we didn't do anything to the wings surface, just seemed like a lot of work but we did get 10knots in cruise improvement at a loss of 10lb of useful load. I spoke with others on the piper forum who had the LoPresti cowling installed and the consensus was 5 knots from the cowling. Same guys that cleanup the M20J cowling so it's not snake oil they are selling. Two more knots can be had by going to the two bladed simitar Hartzel prop so technically, if you really wanted to spend 22K, you could end up with a 152knot Arrow. I just go tired of dumping $$$ into mine, sold it for half of what I had into it and bought a Bravo. Where the Arrow is a total pig and Mooney just shines is high DA climb rates. Even with all my gap seals, VGs, etc I'd take off from KAPA on a hot summer day and be lucky to see 300FPM. A M20J will easily do twice that in the same conditions.

Actually, you can make an Arrow do 150knots. Full LFS kit plus the LoPresti cowling but it will set you back a pretty penny for the cowling. They made a lance, a real pig, win quite a few races in the 1980's. The piper wing is actually a laminar flow wing, it just takes a lot of work to make it work like one. I love how everyone here so easily disregards other makes. There are Cherokees out there with full LFS kits that have won many, many races at speeds approaching close to an unmodified M20C. Mine regulary did 145 at 6000 doing a 4 way run. 148knots required full aft loading. But yes, a standard arrow will never make the book numbers. My Bravo on the other hand, does book numbers with TKS. I also know of a F33A with TATurbo that smokes by Bravo at 12,000 by about 10knots on 4 gallons per hour less with 400lb more useful load.

I'm sure the bonanza crew will tell us that Mooney's are pigs too ;-) What do you mean when you say pig? By a beech standard, mooneys are terrible pigs. A piper arrow does have better control harmony than a mooney. Mooney is a A to B airplane and does so wonderfully, my last flight from KCBF to KTOP took 35 minutes and included exactly 30 seconds of hand flying, the rest was done by twisting knobs. I love that about my airplane but I'm not going to pretend they are fun to take for a spin and go poke holes in the sky. The aillerons, rudder and elevator have completelly different gradients unlike let's say a Baron which is a joy to fly by hand without looking at instruments. I like my mooney but I do not have a religious affiliation with it. It's a very compromised airplane meant to climb well and go fast but leaves a lot to be desired. But it also leaves a lot of money in my pocket vs a Bonanza.

I wouldn't exactly say Arrows are slow. I finally sold mine a few weeks ago, mine was the 1969 200hp so a short wings, short tail and short body. 25/2500 at 6000 it would do 145knots. It was properly rigged and had a full laminar flow kit. Plus my useful was 1030lb so a true full fuel and 4 peeps. See the picture below on a perfect day, doing 148knots. I also had the VGs so I could easily come down 65mph over the fence with a blast of power to arrest the sink rate. Comfort wise, my arrow seemed much more roomy than my mooney up front. Mooney handles turbulence much better than the Arrow but the arrow with gap seals is a much more fun of an airplane to hand fly. Much better cordination of controls, much lighter aileron. My Bravo is a wonderful instrument platform but fun to hand fly, I wouldn't say. Of course, I'd never seen 200knots before in my Arrow and I see that in my Bravo heading east all the time.

Just gone done with a 2.7 hour flight and I'm a closer to John's fuel burns than the other posters. What are you guys leaning? 1550? 1500? The fuel burn at 34/2400 1650 should be around 21.5 at 17K for about 205knots, 32/2400 1650TIT, around 19.2 for about 195K and then mine just drop off by about 2 gallons per hour from there for each 2 inch manifold reduction and/or 200rpm, so about 17.5 at 30/2400, 15.5 at at 30/2200, 14 at 28/2200 and 12 at 24/2200. At or below 30/2400 my TIT peaks before 1650.

I had the mx-20 and wsi, replaced with gmx-200 and gdl69. Funny thing, I only use my 796. Much, muc easier to access all information for 1/4 the cost, plus if your gps dies, neither mfd have built in gps. My 796 does. Both gmx-200 and gdl 69 are for sale on beech talk. Need the panel space for a proper engine monitor. Gmx-200 actually has a lower resolution than my 796. It's not very often I disagree with jgg, but in this case, the only limitations I see are with a panel mount mfd. maybe if I had a wx500 but I have the wx1000e which also servers as a backup nav head.

I do not understand how all of this is supposed to work. I fly my Bravo, as I did after a 45 days on not using it because I needed to use a twin with useful load: downwind, midfield: 20"/2400, drop the landing gear downwind, abeam: 20"/2400, put in full flaps turn base, turn final still doing 95knots, no more turns, pull the power out, something like 10" manifold pressure, two mile out final, slowly glide to over the numbers are 75knots. That's how it feels to me. It takes a willful effort to slow a Mooney down to a landing speed. If you do not feel you're 5 degrees nose up and slowing down, oh well, you weren't meant to fly. It takes hard work and effert to keep the speed at 75knots even without any power. The plane just wants to fly and haul ass. Plus, the older I get, the less I fly what is called "a pattern". Airlines fly straight in and so do I most of the time at nice 3% slope. Why? Because it works safety wise.

It is a reality, I have one sitting in my basement right now. I even run it in my kitchen to make sure it puts out equivalent fluid volume. I found out about on beechtalk. I really wish the Mooney crew would stop treating their airplanes like sacred cows and that we would all move towards the CSOb and Beechtalk type forum where people actually find parts numbers and/or equivalent parts and install them on their airplanes. Straight from Germany. Now I learnt something about TKS to be a lesson for all. Being I own 2 1/4 airplanes right now with an access to my business partner's IV-P turboprop, I haven't flow the Bravo in 45 days. It was all covered in hangar dust being we haven't had a winter in a while and everything is dusty. TKS fluid and dust do no MIX. Between the thick fluid and dust on the windshield and boundary effect, I ended up having to land looking out of my side window. I wasn't it icing or even IMC, just decided to prime the system while out screwing around on Sunday. TKS fluid and dust make for a very opaque windshield. A bottle of windex in my flight bag from now on. It was a funny ATC call to make. Took a while to explain. Here is the switches link, identical, part for part as the landing light switch I got a 250 dollar quote for from MAC or BMAC, with B standing for Tango Uniform, as I like to call them: ttp://www.engravers.net/aircraft/rocker_switches.htm For all I care, MAC needs to go fully Tango Uniform, release their drawings and part numbers into public domain (or you can just look them up on brazilian FAA as they release all type certificate data) and let other parties, actually interested in making money get in the business. BTW, mooney is not the only company to soon be replaced, thank budda or whatever the indian gods are: http://www.theaussieaviator.net/threads/kit-plane-technique-may-benefit-cessna.1776/ Apparently Cessna is just learning what CNC is ;-) "The idea is not a new one. The process was used in the construction of the Eiffel Tower, Willford said." would be effing funny if not so sad

If you're updating your panel and your avionics shop says OK and they have carte blanche with their local FSDO, which most of them do because the FSODs are mostly concerned with part 121 and 135, you can do what ever you want hence a lot of Garmin G500 with RCA 2600 out there. Not STCd, nobody cares how you want to kill yourself in your little "dinky" airplane. And apparently I've been trying hard in my Bravo to no avail. I still think the transfer case on my benz G500 is more complex that all the airplanes I've ever flown put together. It's a work of art unlike the TIO540AF1B I fly behind which closelly resembled a tractor engine from 1930's.

Quote: pjsny78 You mean like the switches in my Bravo aka $9.99 cents available from anywhere on the planet or $250.00 from Mooney Company. It's a an effing switch...Yes, I'm sure my Honeywell switch is current limiting, protects me from witches, etc. Yes, I have the part numbers, 15 from Honeywell or 250 from Mooney Company. Same with the voltage regulators....