AndyFromCB

The switches are Honeywell AML34FBA4AC01 or AML34EBA4AC01 Oxygen bottles, I do not have a part number of the top of my head, but if you want me to prove my point, I'll post pictures. You can't prove a part number when the factory is running a racket and giving TSO'd part numbers their own numbers like the Airborne stanby vacuum system. On all Cessnas and Beeches it was installed under an Airbore TSO and part number. Only Mooney called it their own. Same with Scoot oxygen systems. Maybe when your bird becomes grouned because of their BS you'll realize there is a bit more of aircraft maintenance than following orders.

jetdrivven, There is nothing I can do to make you less of Mooney Company fanatic but I guarantee you they do not make their own switches, or voltage regulators or oxygen bottles. All they do is change the part number to start with a 5 or 9. For last 30 years, Mooney Company could not design a blender if they were given a billion dollars from federal government. For the life of me, I do not understand this level of bullshit fanatisism with Mooney or FAA. If your avionics shop followed all the regulations, they could not installl a simple upgraded COM becuase wire is not TSOd. Bravo voltage regulators are Zeffronics R25400 in a custome encosure. All switches on Bravo panel are Honeywell switches with custom engrarving. All 115 cu ft oxygen bottles are done by a Boeing subcontractor, they are also used on a 737. If you really want to start a war, I'll go back to my spreadsheets and find the exact part numbers. Been there, done that, over my dead body I am paying Mooney $1500 for a voltage regulator if I can just snap a R25400 from Texas for 250 bucks and replace the board.

Quote: pjsny78 These are beautiful. But the price makes me think that they are cheap in quality.

I once tugged my prop in front of some young eagles and now I have to let the sherrif know everytime I move. Don't tug your prop.

With my freshly installed maglev drive in place of my single piece belly, moving my airplane is a cake...You should see what it does to my takeoffs too. Plus I never have to worry about gear up landings unless of course I want to do one on purpose to bend my propeller back into shape ;-) Now if somebody could just help me to get all these angels off this pin, it would be great. I don't know how many is there but quite a few. They are all dancing and I'm trying to concentrate on work.

Gordon, When the Bravo first came out it was called the TLS. I suffered a rash of engine problems from the start. Everyone was running theirs at peak of 1750TIT. It wasn't the turbo or exhaust. It was the cylinder's exhaust valves that were failing. Hence the Bravo Wet Head mod (sounds kind of dirty, doesn't it). Are you running 100ROP based on EGT? Or 100ROP TIT? If TIT, then 1650 is the number and you should be seeing our fuel flows. As to LOP, I've never tried running my engine that way other that when I first realized what what leaning to peak TIT or 1750 meant, as in I pulled the mixture past TIT when it didn't peak before 1650. It run resonably well at lower power settings. Waiting to replace my GEM602 with the new G1 soon before I can tell more about my spread becase I find the GEM to be virtually unusable. Andy

There is one more viable alternative, a late F33A, with IO550 and TA Turbo. It will easily hit 200knots, legaly carry 1300lb with TKS tanks full. Now, climbs rates ate 3850lb will be miserable and it will cost approximatelly $300K to build an airplane like that or buy one already done. There is one on beechtalk right now without TKS for $225K. Now, I paid $129K for my Bravo, put another 17K into fixing all squaks and upgrading WSI 300 to GDL69 and MX20 to GMX200. So 150K total or so by the time all is said and done. That extra 150K will buy a hell of a Cherokee 6 on top of the Mooney if I even want to carry a piano. I feel kind of ill with just one airplane right now but for now the other one is going to be a Super Decathlon.

I would never do that myself either on purpose, John, but on the delivery flight, persons unnamed accidentaly topped off it off at Pueblo, so she was about 250lb over on take off. Not the smartest thing to do, but supposedly the airplane was still doing 900fpm ;-) Not that I would know. I find myself about 60lb from where we should be at and we're always get better than book climb rates. I'm quite sure that spar never even notices. On the way back, east, taking off from either Granby or Jackson Hole, we are always 160lb under gross, then it really makes a difference in clearing the peaks by 4000 to 6000 foot margins.

I can always tell on the next run up if I run my Bravo too rich during the previous flight because my sparks are fouled up and I need to get up to 2000rpm for a few minutes and pull the mixture back to clean them. I do not put the mixture all the way in the landings any more either. If I have to go around, I just go right to left on all my controls. My prop never leaves 2400 for landings either.

John, Now, let me correct you here a little bit. I'm sure that you are in top shape and wife is a lovely size 0 but even then when you say almost always at gross at take off, what you really mean: almost always a bit over gross at take off. 950 - 534fuel - 56tks = 360lb ;-) Andy

removed and corrected

Quote: gjkirsch David I am with you. I can't get near that performace on 13 GPH. I can pull it back to 27/2350 and get 175 but I am still using 17GPH. I do get between 190 and 195 at 15,000 burning just under 20gph using 30/2400 with TKS and an attena farm that the CIA would be proud to have! Gordon

Always in my flight bag http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/paratCsmokehood.php The previous owner of my bird had a little halon fire supression system installed that has lines going forward to the firewall and to the tail cone over the batteries. Not exactly approved, so he asked me if I wanted it removed during prebuy/annual. I said yes and winked ;-)

From my few hours in a Cirrus cockpit, it is much more comfortable and quiet that my Bravo or my Arrow. The cabin doesn't just seem larger, it is considerably wider and much, much more quiet.The seats are so much more comfortably than my Mooney. Everything seems well though out vs the let's see where we can find some empty space Mooney philosphy. The climate control is wonderful. So why didn't I buy one? Hand flying that thing is horrible, it's not that it doesn't fly well but it feels like driving a boat, no feedback what so ever thru the controls. Just plain horrible. The climb rate and performance at high density altitude sucks with that wing. As much as I love autopilots, the most critical phases of flight must be handflown and Cirrus plainly sucks there. My other car is a Honda S2000 so my mooney suits me just fine ;-) My first car is a beat up truck. Cirrus I think very much appeals to MB/Lexus crowd. Plus something still feels very wrong about having them wheels hanging out in the wind. Fortune willing, my next airplane will be the big Mooney aka TBM 850. Just got to keep on working ;-) Had a plasure to fly it a few times and it is just a big, giant Mooney Bravo. Even more of that on-rails feeling that I get with a Mooney. And yes, they are hard to land if you can't control your airspeed. If I cross the fence at 75knots, power at idle, many times I wonder if I'm on the ground or still flying. My Arrow is almost sold, my Super Decathlon is almost bought ;-)

I agree with infant mortality. That's why it's a discussion board. I run into the same issues all the time. My Arrow flew for 40 years, 20 of them JA Air maintenance before anyone noticed some "strange repairs" from 1970 in the left wing. Damn thing was flying just fine for 40 years, but in the end I did blow alway $14K getting the issues fixed. I don't know where to draw the line between preventive replacement and infant mortality possibility. Just bringing up the other side of equation into the question. Now if only my speed brakes weren't vacuum, I could get rid of that pump with the upcoming Aspen upgrade, but on the other hand, now I'll have a vacuum gyro as my back up;-)

Sabremech, I only brought up 135 because it is where I seek guideance towards maintance. Those rules are the for a reason. To me, if I cannot afford to maintain an airplane under part 135 equivalent means I cannot afford the airplane. I try to be fairly informed owner and do a lot of maintenance work myself, especially trouble shooting/component removal. Reinstallation, etc, I get my mechanic involved who by the way works for an annual flat rate as an advisor only. The actuall work gets performed by another shop. You could call him my director of maintenance. All I am trying to say, look to 135 when a question comes up. Those rules are there for a reason and huge part of their safety record. I hate this boards sometimes when people complain about a set of hoses, or a propeller needing to be looked at after 12 years of hanging there or 35 year engines. At the very least we are all maintaining what would be a $300,000 machine today. It's going to take time and money to do it right so when I hear Mike Bauch's name it makes me want to cringe. Snake oil salesman. You got one engine, is your life really that cheap than a $2000 set of new hoses every 7 years is too much? Or a propeller reseal and repaint for another $2K every 6 years? You can't just stop and pull over. Or a third set of eyes during any maintenance. If you ever see any of my tail numers in the NTSB, I guarantee you, it won't be maintance releated because I couldn't or didn't want to save up a few bucks a day to keep my machines in as new condition as possible. How often does that falcon get looked at. If it's flying and making money, I bet you weekly. A lot easier to maintain things on condition in that situation than an average owner owned aircraft being flown twice a month on a long cross country. Airplanes only come in two ways. All squaks identified and fixed or all squaks not identified yet. Nature of making things light enough to fly also makes them of lightweight and not as durable as say a semi truck.

Well, of course, all animals are created equal, it's just that some animals are more equal than others. I really shouldn't have said part 121 because I have no idea how airlines work but there is a world of difference between part 91 and part 135 maintenance requirements. As to 121, I assume it has to be like 135 if not even more stringent?

Sabremech, Depends on the hose and manufacturer and type of maintenance being followed. If 121 or 135 and the manufacturer mandates a service life of 5 or 7 years, then it must be replaced on calendar. Learned that a while ago while considering going in on a Conquest to be leased by a 135. Every damn things needed a 8130/yellow tag. Needless to say, it didn't work out. Good news is AeroQuip does not place a lifelimit on their hoses. Andy

It really comes down to how you want to maintain your airplane. The reason why turbine aircraft are so reliable is not just the engines. It's because they follow a recommended schedule of maintenance and replacements of parts, whether they are needed or not. Bravo got new hoses at last annual, not sure it needed it, but 7 years seems to be an accepted practice in turbine world. If I wasn't flying it for business though, with the associated pre-tax dollars used, I don't know that I would have done it myself. They all seemed just fine. But I don't recall that being a requirements, just something my mechanic recommended. He also recommended looking at fixing my tank leak, which is about a drop every month and I just had a good chuckle and asked him which kid needed braces now ;-) My take on propellers is to have them looked over and re-sealed halfway thru the engine life, or 6 years. Big giant gyro spinning up front and if it goes so do I. I'd take an engine failure over a prop failure any day. About $1500 vs an $3000 to $4000 for an overhaul.

Quote: DaV8or Wow. That seems kind of vague. What constitutes "necessary weather knowledge"? How do we make go, no go decisions? A hunch? A guess? Just go up and try? If you can see cloud and OAT is telling you it's freezing outside, how do you know if you'll get ice or not?

Quote: rob Seems like this comes up every year on all sorts of aviation forums, doesn't it? I agree with your sentiment.

At the risk of once again being called names, let me add two more cents. The are also wonderful safety tool in the mountains like Jackson Hole and/or Granby allowing you to stay up high for as long as possible. I wouldn't fly to either of the locations without them. The actually allow me to be more efficients and burn less fuel by not being forced to do 30 minutes circling descents from FL200 down to 6000 in Jackson Hole. Basically, I fly over the valley, descent to FL180, cancel my IFR, pop out the breaks and down we go. On the ground in 5 minutes. This way I'm always within gliding range of a flat valley. You couldn't pay me enough to fly there in a single in IMC. Last mooney that attempted that is still in pieces on Gannett Peak. But I'm sure some of you here will find multitude of reasons why a turbo is actually a disatvantage in the mountains, really, just a crutch for amateurs instead of the pros who use the mountain waves to their advantage.

Quote: M016576 Wow. " Amateurish comments because some poeple believe they are a crutch." Thats a pretty harsh remark, considering some of the aviation experience on this board. I have no doubt that those that have speed brakes on their ~200kt mooney's enjoy using them, but realize that their are faster aircraft out there that shoot beautiful approaches without boards. For this type of aircraft, I would put speed brakes in the "luxury item" category. After all, every mooney is equipped with a huge spinning speed brake straight out of the factory... My humble opinion is this- your feelings on the necessity of speed brakes are directly correlated to what, where and how you've flown prior to your mooney. If you've got I'm, and need them, then use them. I wouldnt go out of my way (or wallet) to install them though. Just my humble opinion.

There is actually two voltage regulators in a Bravo, Zeftronics, it just so happens they are sitting in a single box. However, they are not really load balancing voltage regulators, just a simple fail over connection from right to left chanel. Basically, the right channel is the master, with left only kicking in should the right side die. In order to trully balance, both channels would require a amp shunt pick up and our voltage regulators only have a sense voltage pick ups which BTW is a single point of failure as both channels get their sense voltage from Announciator Panel circuit breaker. If that one ever pops, there go your alternators. Or you can just turn on all your lights which will put enough load on them to limp home without exceeding about 30 volts. The G1000 Bravos, Ovations and Acclaims have a true load balancing voltage controller. I have a plane power voltage regulator with a 9 pin plug sitting in my passanger wall pocket just in case the voltage regulator dies on me somewhere away from home. Total cost of about 200 in parts from PP and Moser. Plus it's great for tracking down issues.

Sounds about right with shipping costs. Mine were 570 plus about 40 in shipping to and cores back