LANCECASPER Posted May 1, 2016 Report Share Posted May 1, 2016 2 hours ago, rocketman said: I discussed performance figures with Mooney at Sun-n-Fun recently and they reminded me that the engine is actually rated much higher than 270 hp so the actual performance figures should be adjusted accordingly. Just because it was derated to 270 does not mean that the 270 is 100% hp, especially during break-in procedures. Interesting thought. The truth of the matter is that there is no absolute truth to this matter! There was a lot of misinformation about this engine. Many were saying that in other applications it was rated to 350hp, so at 270hp the TIO-540-AF1A was just loafing along. Absolutely not true. To make 270hp the temperatures you had to use (1750 TIT) would never allow it to reach TBO. Those who ran the engines conservatively (1600 TIT and 380 CHTs) had good success with it. It's amazing that these stories are still floating around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketman Posted May 1, 2016 Report Share Posted May 1, 2016 I am sort of agreeing with you Lance. The TIO-540 is certified to run at 100% power ONLY if the temperatures (TIT, CHT) are within the parameters. I run my TIT at 1525 - 1550 and CHT at 375 or below at all times even during break-in which I am still doing. For break in I am running at 24/34 most of the time while cycling at lower settings periodically keeping the cowl flaps open and higher fuel flows (rich settings). This keeps all the temps very low (375 CHT and TIT around 1350} and fuel flow at 26 gph.Flying at lower altitudes also helps (less than 7000 feet). Eventually I will fly it at 24/19 with a TIT of 1550 all the time in cruise. Rings will not seat at 24/19 during break-in as others have suggested but rather will cause glazing on the cylinder walls. Annealing of the rings will not occur with these temperature settings I am using during break in. No matter the power settings, Temperature must be held at very specified ranges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Armour Posted May 3, 2016 Report Share Posted May 3, 2016 We should do a thread for oil reports :-) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awful_Charlie Posted May 8, 2016 Report Share Posted May 8, 2016 On 30/04/2016 at 0:15 AM, rocketman said: I discussed performance figures with Mooney at Sun-n-Fun recently and they reminded me that the engine is actually rated much higher than 270 hp so the actual performance figures should be adjusted accordingly. Just because it was derated to 270 does not mean that the 270 is 100% hp, especially during break-in procedures. Interesting thought. The truth of the matter is that there is no absolute truth to this matter! I'm very surprised Mooney came out with that. If you look at this you can see the AF1 has been developed from a 250HP engine, and the 300+ HP engines have a different evolution altogether. In summary, for an AF1 it goes: Model/HP/Max RPM/Fuel/Compression/Description O-540-ALA 250/235 2575/2400 100/100LL 8.50:1 Two sixth order counterweights (not sure about the origin here - couldn't find an A1A, ALA is the closest) O-540-A1A5 250/235 2575/2400 100/100LL 8.50:1 Same as O-540-A1A but one fifth and one sixth order counterweights O-540-A1B5 250/235 2575/2400 100/100LL 8.50:1 Same as -A1A5 except for short propeller governor studs and two impulse magnetos O-540-A1D5 250/235 2575/2400 100/100LL 8.50:1 Same as -A1B5 except for Retard Breaker Magnetos IO-540-C1B5 250 2575 100/100LL 8.50:1 Same as O-540-A1D5 but with Bendix fuel injector IO-540-C4B5 250 2575 100/100LL 8.50:1 Same as -C1B5 but with more effective counterweights for use with Hartzell "compact,, propeller IO-540-J4A5 250 2575 100/100LL 8.50:1 Same as -C4B5 except comersion for use with turbo- charger, long reach spark plugs, piston cooling oil jets, AN fuel pump drive, vented fuel nozzles and -1200 series Magnetos TIO-540-C1A 250 2575 100/100LL 7.20:1 IO-540-J4A5 equipped with TE0659 turbocharger and low compression pistons TIO-540-K1AD 250 2575 100/100LL 8.00:1 Similar to -CIA but with D6LN-3200 retard breaker dual magneto, pressure controller, provision for cabin pressurization, rear mounted fuel injector, turbocharger mounted to rear of engine and higher C.R. TIO-540-AA1AD 270 2575 100/100LL 8.00:1 Similar to -K1AD but has a different controller system and has provision for a rear mounted propeller governor TIO-540-AF1A 270 2575 100/100LL 8.00:1 Similar to -AA1AD but has Slick magnetos, different turbocharger and an intercooler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted May 9, 2016 Report Share Posted May 9, 2016 That logic makes the fuzzy 65% BHP comfort factor for leaning outside the red box, more warm and fuzzy... Is there any application data that would allow 2700rpm for take-off? Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tx_Aggie Posted November 10, 2019 Report Share Posted November 10, 2019 The search function is great in Mooneyspace, this thread has been very educational for me. I’m considering a 1700 hour Bravo and a 1700 hour J right now. My typical trips are 350-400 nm journeys in the 8-12k altitudes. I’m a bit more learned on the J than the bravo, but the altitude range I fly doesn’t necessarily single out one or the other. If the Bravo was well maintained, how much time should I have before I need major overhaul work, provided I operate at, lets say, 65% power settings at these altitudes? TIA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkaye Posted November 10, 2019 Report Share Posted November 10, 2019 16 hours ago, Tx_Aggie said: The search function is great in Mooneyspace, this thread has been very educational for me. I’m considering a 1700 hour Bravo and a 1700 hour J right now. My typical trips are 350-400 nm journeys in the 8-12k altitudes. I’m a bit more learned on the J than the bravo, but the altitude range I fly doesn’t necessarily single out one or the other. If the Bravo was well maintained, how much time should I have before I need major overhaul work, provided I operate at, lets say, 65% power settings at these altitudes? TIA. If you're considering either one of those, I'd consider it only at a pretty hefty discount, especially the Bravo. A Reman from Lycoming installed will be about $85,000 with the Overhaul from Lycoming being about $8,000 less. Much less for the J. I'm on my 3rd Bravo engine. The first one went to 2,295 hours before I changed it out because I do a lot of IFR flying. It had the Bravo modification done at 1,300 hours, which meant it got all new cylinders and oil injection. The second one needed a couple of cylinders overhauled at about 1,100 hours due to leaks in the intake valves; cost $9,000 for the two. It was changed out at 1600 hours due to a mishap during an Annual. I fly at 75% power most of the time. One other thing; check to make sure the gear actuator is not a Plessey. If it is, then discount the plane another 18K for a replacement. You can't get the back clutch spring at any price. PER-I-OD. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIm20c Posted November 10, 2019 Report Share Posted November 10, 2019 1 hour ago, Tx_Aggie said: I’m considering a 1700 hour Bravo and a 1700 hour J right now. If your looking at the one in MI send me a PM and I’ll go have a look at it. Only a 20 min flight away for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted November 11, 2019 Report Share Posted November 11, 2019 If happy in the 8-12k’ altitude range, and with the mid body J.... Why take on the added expense for something that has a luxurious back seat that travels easily in the flight levels? If the common flight is 400nm and E-W is a common direction... Go TC’d bird and enjoy modern sailing in the FLs... Cruise speeds of the TC’d birds are more awesome... To get that, requires lowering the drag, while maintaining the power... something that requires the TC or TN... might help to rent some training in a Bravo or M20K before making the decision... PP thoughts only, not a CFI... Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davidv Posted November 11, 2019 Report Share Posted November 11, 2019 19 hours ago, MIm20c said: If your looking at the one in MI send me a PM and I’ll go have a look at it. Only a 20 min flight away for me. Looks like all American has one too, question for the one in MI would be whether it has Bravo conversion since the engine is original... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philiplane Posted November 11, 2019 Report Share Posted November 11, 2019 The Bravo engine is not a de-rated 350 HP engine, like that used in the Navajo. Its closest cousin is the TIO-540-C1A used in the Turbo Aztec. Lycoming bumped the compression up from 7.2 to 8.0 to 1, and added an intercooler, and later, wet heads. In short, they took a hot running engine from the Aztec, added some more power, and stuffed it into an even smaller cowling on the Mooney. It is marginal in cooling, and that is what limits the absolute efficiency of the engine. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkaye Posted November 11, 2019 Report Share Posted November 11, 2019 1 hour ago, philiplane said: The Bravo engine is not a de-rated 350 HP engine, like that used in the Navajo. Its closest cousin is the TIO-540-C1A used in the Turbo Aztec. Lycoming bumped the compression up from 7.2 to 8.0 to 1, and added an intercooler, and later, wet heads. In short, they took a hot running engine from the Aztec, added some more power, and stuffed it into an even smaller cowling on the Mooney. It is marginal in cooling, and that is what limits the absolute efficiency of the engine. At least in the mid teens where I fly and with a great engine monitor like the MVP-50, I've never had a cooling issue. Hottest cylinder is under 380°F and TIT below 1605.°F. On my 3rd engine now. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tx_Aggie Posted November 12, 2019 Report Share Posted November 12, 2019 20 hours ago, carusoam said: If happy in the 8-12k’ altitude range, and with the mid body J.... Why take on the added expense for something that has a luxurious back seat that travels easily in the flight levels? If the common flight is 400nm and E-W is a common direction... Go TC’d bird and enjoy modern sailing in the FLs... Cruise speeds of the TC’d birds are more awesome... To get that, requires lowering the drag, while maintaining the power... something that requires the TC or TN... might help to rent some training in a Bravo or M20K before making the decision... PP thoughts only, not a CFI... Best regards, -a- I have about 100 hours in an ovation and the long bodies are very appealing to me. I never thought I could grab one for close to J prices but with several on the market it’s hard not to consider. I’m just not sure I could do the $85k overhaul soon. Some one quoted that as a factory new install. Are there any folks here who have gone with an overhauled engine or is there a range of prices you have seen recently? Also I’ve read the MAPAlog article on the bravo finding TAS at 10,500’ to be around 193 ktas at 10,500 and I believe 21 gph. What are fuel flows and corresponding TAS you all have seen if you throttle back to 13, 14, 15, 16 gph in the 8-12k altitude ranges? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted November 12, 2019 Report Share Posted November 12, 2019 I bought my O after looking at Js in 2007... A small recession ensued... and the O was the same price as the J was a year earlier... A few great years passed... Then the ground struck my prop, while I was out of town... That experience can set you back about 60amu... 35amu for the engine, 15amu for the prop, and a bunch for R&R... factory reman... 175kts ROP 15gph 165kts LOP 12.5gph Flying around with no O2 with a family of four... is pretty comfy. Everyone is sleeping before departure... an hour later, they awake rested and seeing their grand parents... They have all grown up and gone to college since then... Best regards, -a- 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkaye Posted November 12, 2019 Report Share Posted November 12, 2019 1 hour ago, Tx_Aggie said: I have about 100 hours in an ovation and the long bodies are very appealing to me. I never thought I could grab one for close to J prices but with several on the market it’s hard not to consider. I’m just not sure I could do the $85k overhaul soon. Some one quoted that as a factory new install. Are there any folks here who have gone with an overhauled engine or is there a range of prices you have seen recently? Also I’ve read the MAPAlog article on the bravo finding TAS at 10,500’ to be around 193 ktas at 10,500 and I believe 21 gph. What are fuel flows and corresponding TAS you all have seen if you throttle back to 13, 14, 15, 16 gph in the 8-12k altitude ranges? $85K was for a factory Reman with a good core returned to Lycoming, not new. New would be out of the question for most. 75% power at 17K would be about 18 gal/hr with a TAS close to 200 knots. The Bravo was not made to go slow. If you want to go slow at very low power setting, I recommend getting a J model instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted November 12, 2019 Report Share Posted November 12, 2019 Don, Do you have a favorite range of altitudes for cruising in your Bravo? Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkaye Posted November 12, 2019 Report Share Posted November 12, 2019 1 hour ago, carusoam said: Don, Do you have a favorite range of altitudes for cruising in your Bravo? Best regards, -a- Less than 100 nm: 4,500-6,500 100nm-200nm: 9,500-13,500 Greater than 200nm: 15,500-17,500 Over the Sierras and Rockies: FL190-FL200 I don't like the mask, so I usually won't fly in the Flight Levels. Also, Shirley has the tendency to get the Bends if in the flight levels more than 2.5 hours. For me the difference in TAS is not worth the time to climb, or the potential physical effects of flying in the Flight Levels in a non pressurized airplane. When I first got the plane, that was not the case, and I numerous times flew FL210-FL230. Going to teach at a PPP in KCOS one time I flew at FL230 and made the trip nonstop in a little over 4 hours. Same on the way back. On another trip back many years ago, after teaching at a PPP mountain flying class in KCOS and flying with my mentor instructor, we stopped in Wendover for lunch at the friendly casino just over the border in Nevada. By the time we were done thunderstorms were developing near our route back. I had no inflight weather like today, just the stormscope. I wanted to stay overnight, and had I been alone I would have. He said the always foreboding statement, "Let's go take a look". I knew it was a bad idea and would never have agreed to it today. Suffice it to say things got dicey as night set in, and a flight that started at 14,000 feet kept going up to the point I asked for and got a block clearance 24,000 to 26,000. Since the plane is certified to 25,000 feet, that is all I'm going to say, but suffice it to say I stayed in the clear and was looking down at cloud to cloud lightning below us. Even now I don't want to think of the risk associated with the loss of the engine that night. That definitely was an "I learned about flying from that" story. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irishpilot Posted November 14, 2019 Report Share Posted November 14, 2019 Short hops probably dont warrant the extra expense of the Bravo. I use my Bravo for 500-800 mi trips and I go high almost always. I file IFR and I get GPS direct quite a bit because not a lot of civilian traffic in the teens. I don't have a specific target altitude. I fly at the best alt for winds. However, it usually ends up being: Going East - 16k-FL210. West - 8-14k. Fly Safe,Safety Forum Mod 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob737 Posted November 19, 2019 Report Share Posted November 19, 2019 All, Thanks for the thoughtful responses and information on this and other topics related to the great airplane we call the Mooney. I am currently in a club with a very close friend in his 1994 Bravo with six months (65 hours) of experience in this wonderful aircraft and happily I'm learning on every leg. Oh and I am lucky enough to have spent more than a few hours teaching in the naturally aspirated short body Mooneys over the last couple of years (decades) but still feel like there's more that I need to know - and that is what is great about this group. So thank you and happy landings, Rob in NoVa N9133F Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted November 19, 2019 Report Share Posted November 19, 2019 Welcome aboard Rob, congrats on your first post... Mooney Learning is a continuous process... The short body and the long body are related... but not too closely... Keep asking questions... we have quite a few Bravo owners here...Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.