N252MK Posted March 5, 2017 Report Share Posted March 5, 2017 Given variations in aircraft equipment what is the typical useful load range for Bravos? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LANCECASPER Posted March 5, 2017 Report Share Posted March 5, 2017 I do not have A/C or TKS and I still have my dual vacuum pumps. My useful load is 985. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Junkin Posted March 5, 2017 Report Share Posted March 5, 2017 My useful load is 998#. TKS (not FIKI), electric vacuum backup, stock panel from a W&B perspective. New interior and paint may have shed a few pounds.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted March 5, 2017 Report Share Posted March 5, 2017 (edited) Long Bodies are going to have a range from about 900 to 1100 Lbs. This includes a chunk of Charlie weights in the tail of up to 60 or so Lbs. That can be swapped out for useful equipment such as installed O2, AC, and TKS... Eagles have the best chance of reaching the 1100 mark. Bravos have a tendency to be full up with all kinds of top of the line stuff plus a big turbo out on the nose... Best regards, -a- Edited March 5, 2017 by carusoam 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danb Posted March 5, 2017 Report Share Posted March 5, 2017 My Bravo 990 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyDave Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 My Bravo is original paint, no Air Conditioning or TKS and my UL is 1,009 lbs. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awful_Charlie Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 FIKI TKS, no A/C, tail cone vac pump and 13lb charlies (max is 19lbs btw) leaves me 991. Next diet (not this year, unlikely to be next year too!) will include getting rid of all the vacuum systems for about 20lbs, and then an MT prop for 10lbs off the nose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 Has anyone been thinking about the new blue aviation lipo battery packs? That saves slot of weight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 As long as I have Charlie weights sitting with the batteries, a lighter battery won't be much help. Larger capacity batteries for the same weight are always appreciated.... (Concord life expectancy, not Gil life expectancy) A lighter MT prop or composite TP would be pretty helpful... Adding the second alternator probably puts weight back on the nose compared to the vac pump. Going all electric panel lightens things up a bit. Remote mounting BigG boxes to the tail can help a bunch... Removing weight from the nose equates to removing an 'equivalent' amount of Charlie weight. I used 'equivalent' to denote the arm calculation needed to determine the ratio of weight removed from the nose compared to weight removed from the ballast's location. Overall, avoid adding weight to the nose as well as removing weight from the tail.... (LB WnB planning) The K didn't get Charlie weights, but Rocket Engineering did a pretty good job of using the dual batteries mounted way back as ballast... again, check your WnB before deciding on going with a lighter battery in this case... PP ideas from an avid Mooney fan, not a mechanic... Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LANCECASPER Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 2 hours ago, aviatoreb said: Has anyone been thinking about the new blue aviation lipo battery packs? That saves slot of weight. If they are lithium ion I wouldn't see them getting approved due to all of the temperature variations and fire hazard potential. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alain B Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 Just now, LANCECASPER said: If they are lithium ion I wouldn't see them getting approved due to all of the temperature variations and fire hazard potential. They are already STC on A36 and a few others . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LANCECASPER Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 Just now, Alain B said: They are already STC on A36 and a few others . I googled "Blue Aviation Battery" and can't find them, what's the name of the batteries? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alain B Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 https://www.truebluepowerusa.com/tb17/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LANCECASPER Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 They may have a lot of potential down the road, but for me the safety is still not completely established. I don't want to be a test pilot. Since I still need ballast weight in the back of the Mooney I don't see the advantage yet. http://www.concordebattery.com/lion.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 1 hour ago, LANCECASPER said: They may have a lot of potential down the road, but for me the safety is still not completely established. I don't want to be a test pilot. Since I still need ballast weight in the back of the Mooney I don't see the advantage yet. http://www.concordebattery.com/lion.php Frankly, they do make me nervous too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alain B Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 3 minutes ago, aviatoreb said: Frankly, they do make me nervous too. They are a completely different technologie , FWIW . https://www.truebluepowerusa.com/nanophosphate-lithium-ion-tech/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 12 minutes ago, Alain B said: They are a completely different technologie , FWIW . https://www.truebluepowerusa.com/nanophosphate-lithium-ion-tech/ :-) I said I'm nervous (call it a healthy suspicion), but I might just do it when my current batteries are ready to replace, if the w&b works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kris_adams Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 On 3/6/2017 at 11:22 AM, LANCECASPER said: They may have a lot of potential down the road, but for me the safety is still not completely established Yeah, me too. I had a lithium battery melt down on a big tractor and it totally reminded me of the whole 787 stories. I'm not willing to put one in my plane yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Armour Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 Around 990 lbs for me. No TKS, no A/C. Someone mentioned an extra, Bravos already have two alternators. All that said, given enough runway for takeoff you can stuff whatever you want inside and get the job done (so I have been told) Burn fuel for meeting landing weight. I need to put mine on the scales to update weights. 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.