Ovation vs. Bravo

[ilovecornfields]

I apologize if this has been covered before, but my unrefined search skills did not yield an answer.

 

After much lurking and some extensive effort to clean and lubricate my flying skills after a 10 year hiatus (is that the appropriate term?), I've finally managed to get my medical, BFR, IPC and get my wife and son to fly in a plane with me and agree that we should buy one (they both want to take flying lessons after their first plane ride -- not sure if that is due to their love of flying or their lack of confidence in the pilot).

 

I live in California about 1.5 hours north of Santa Barbara. I have been looking at planes in the $150-175k range an it looks like there are several Ovations and Bravos in this range (I contemplated a 252 briefly but I think I like the longer body mooneys more). My plan was to mostly use the trips to fly within CA, NV, AZ. It would be nice to be able to go places like Big Bear and Mammoth although I was hoping to have some short(er) field capability as well (like Oceano and Sea Ranch).

 

I like the simplicity of the NA engine, but also appreciate the added value the turbo would bring, especially during the summer trying to fly East over the mountains. I was wondering if anyone could comment on the difference between these two planes with respect to cost (hourly, annual, turbo overhaul, engine overhaul) and if there is a big difference with respect to sea level short field performance between these two planes (I downloaded copies of the respective POH, but I was wondering if anyone had actual experience in the two).

 

Look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Raul

[Browncbr1]

ovations don't seem to have very good short field performance.  3000ft is ok, but it takes a while for the prop to bite.. 

for shorter fields, I would go mid body mooney.  apart from 252's, there are a few Fs around with turbos added,    or a K,  

I would say don't bother with a turbo unless you need to fly in oxygen levels regularly or takeoff from high DA regularly.. 

[gsengle]

Ovations are not bad with regard to takeoff performance, except for the earlier ones with the 280hp/2500rpm setup. But at your price I think the early ovations are a great value and you can do the 310hp stc later if you want. I have a '96 Ovation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[flyboy0681]

Until recently MooneyMitch had an Ovation which he flew out of Oceano.

[gsengle]

The Bravo engines also cost more to overhaul and are less fuel efficient. That said there are Bravo values to be had, and if you need a turbo...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[larryb]

If you can afford one, you can probably afford the other. Both get similar nmpg figures. Many of the costs of ownership are fixed and will be the same regardless. It is hard to go any distance in CA without going over a mountain.

[thinwing]

You mention a Mammoth and Big Bear....summer months leaving later in the day to enjoy last possible departure...we vote the turbo...as far as short field...Approach to searanch would be a white knuckle due to trees on approach

[gsengle]

If you can afford one, you can probably afford the other. Both get similar nmpg figures. Many of the costs of ownership are fixed and will be the same regardless. It is hard to go any distance in CA without going over a mountain.

The former is sure true, but I don't think the latter is. You can't get 175kts on 12gph at 6k feet in a Bravo, can you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Robert C.]

Trade-off time, only you can decide.

for mountain crossing and hot/high DA work you'll want a Bravo. If you rarely fly that way get the 03 (or an O2 and do the STC). Sea level and standard conditions my O3 gets off the ground in 800ft max and climbs well over 1200fpm for the 1st few minutes.

The Bravo will beat the Ovation at higher field altitudes I'm sure but I don't know it's performance numbers.

[larryb]

When I was looking for my upgrade plane, I would take note any time somebody posted their TAS/GPH for a Bravo or Ovation. Of course, there are different power settings, altitudes, lop/rop, etc. that vary the results, but they were consistently in the range of 12 to 14 nmpg for both the Bravo and Ovation. I own neither model, this was just my observation from other people's posts. My gut agrees that an Ovation should be more efficient, so I was surprised to see the nmpg figures so close.

Larry

[Godfather]

1 hour ago, Browncbr1 said:

ovations don't seem to have very good short field performance.  3000ft is ok, but it takes a while for the prop to bite.. 

for shorter fields, I would go mid body mooney.  apart from 252's, there are a few Fs around with turbos added,    or a K,  

I would say don't bother with a turbo unless you need to fly in oxygen levels regularly or takeoff from high DA regularly.. 

There are always variations in individual planes but saying the ovation does not have good short field performance is crazy.  Only the 2 blade ovation 2 prop and the 2 blade eagle props were dogs on the ground.  A 310 hp three blade hauls ___. 

[gsengle]

When I was looking for my upgrade plane, I would take note any time somebody posted their TAS/GPH for a Bravo or Ovation. Of course, there are different power settings, altitudes, lop/rop, etc. that vary the results, but they were consistently in the range of 12 to 14 nmpg for both the Bravo and Ovation. I own neither model, this was just my observation from other people's posts. My gut agrees that an Ovation should be more efficient, so I was surprised to see the nmpg figures so close.
Larry

Part of the difference is you have to go high to achieve that efficiency in the Bravo I suspect...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Browncbr1]

There are always variations in individual planes but saying the ovation does not have good short field performance is crazy.  Only the 2 blade ovation 2 prop and the 2 blade eagle props were dogs on the ground.  A 310 hp three blade hauls ___. 

True. And I speak of the 2 blade 300hp.

[MooneyMitch]

Greetings Mr. Cornfieldlover

I am near Pismo Beach and I am a former Ovation [dearly love it!] owner, having flown that beautiful Mooney in and out of Oceano airport [and many, many other locations] many times.  I recently replaced the engine so I do have experience with that as well.

I'd be happy to provide as much Ovation information to you as I possibly can.

Others here will also offer help.

Please contact me if you wish.

Mitch 805 305-1546 or sanluisjazzband@charter.net

[MooneyMitch]

2 hours ago, gsengle said:

Ovations are not bad with regard to takeoff performance, except for the earlier ones with the 280hp/2500rpm setup. But at your price I think the early ovations are a great value and you can do the 310hp stc later if you want. I have a '96 Ovation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All things being relative, I disagree with your statement that the 280hp/2500 RPM Ovations are less than acceptable for takeoff performance.  My opinion only.

[gsengle]

All things being relative, I disagree with your statement that the 280hp/2500 RPM Ovations are less than acceptable for takeoff performance.  My opinion only.

Depends what you want but they take 50% more space to get off the runway than the 310hp variety and I consider anything under 3000 ft runway to be a better know the DA kinda situation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MooneyMitch]

5 minutes ago, gsengle said:

 

Depends what you want but they take 50% more space to get off the runway than the 310hp variety and I consider anything under 3000 ft runway to be a better know the DA kinda situation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Politely and respectfully disagree again.  Having had the experience of flying the Ovation with 280 and 310 HP, my Oceano airport is 2315ft.  Never any concern whatsoever, landing or taking off. 

[gsengle]

Politely and respectfully disagree again.  Having had the experience of flying the Ovation with 280 and 310 HP, my Oceano airport is 2315ft.  Never any concern whatsoever, landing or taking off. 

I own 280hp Ovation and have flown a 310. I never said one was a problem. I said one gets off way faster than the other. Or is the AFM lying?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Danb]

I  love  all the long bodies, I only would trade my Bravo for an Acclaim, maybe not I like lycoming better than conties for the obvious. Not to disagree with my buddy Gregg but his O won't true over 200 above 14000,  horses for courses. I've had my 2005 since 2006 with no real maintenance issues yet, hope I didn't jinx myself. I'd find the best O or B I could find for right price. I just finsihed a 2000+ mile round trip at low flight 9000 feet truing 188 at 18gph, 10 hours total time , if wife felt better 16000 would yield 200 at 18, not real bad. If your banging the trees for fun a long body most likely is not your choice. A nice cubbie come to mind. Good luck.

[aviatoreb]

2 hours ago, Danb said:

I  love  all the long bodies, I only would trade my Bravo for an Acclaim, maybe not I like lycoming better than conties for the obvious. Not to disagree with my buddy Gregg but his O won't true over 200 above 14000,  horses for courses. I've had my 2005 since 2006 with no real maintenance issues yet, hope I didn't jinx myself. I'd find the best O or B I could find for right price. I just finsihed a 2000+ mile round trip at low flight 9000 feet truing 188 at 18gph, 10 hours total time , if wife felt better 16000 would yield 200 at 18, not real bad. If your banging the trees for fun a long body most likely is not your choice. A nice cubbie come to mind. Good luck.

I've been in a Bravo - no knocks.

But curious Dan - what is your obvious reason for Lycoming over continental?

[ilovecornfields]

Thank you for all the thoughtful replies. Does anyone have experience owning both aircraft? Would be curious what motivates someone to switch between one or the other? Also wondering if anyone has recent overhaul costs for the two engines -- the brief research I did online looks like the Bravo would cost significantly more at overhaul.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[LANCECASPER]

I've had 6 Mooneys over a 25 year period (in order 231, M20M, M20M, M20K (encore), M20R, M20M). The M20R Ovation (310hp) was the only non turbo charged of the Mooneys I owned and I missed the turbo. I am back in a Turbo Mooney. When I get over 10,000 ft and decide I want to go up higher I like 1000 ft per minute climbs and as beautiful as the Ovation was I realized soon after I bought it that I was not going to be satisfied without a turbocharged airplane. I like flying in the teens with a cannula where the air is cool and smooth and there is hardly ever any traffic. The Bravo is perfect for that.

[donkaye, MCFI]

I've owned my Bravo for 25 years.  I'm 1,400 hours into the second engine.  I've got many hours in many Bravos and many Ovations.  I've been cross country many times in both models.  Coming West you have to fly low most of the time due to winds except when you have get up to 15,500 to follow the airways if you take the mid country route.  Going east I fly 15,000 to 18,000 in the Bravo and usually have a tailwind.  So the Bravo is great going East and just had about a 20 edge going West from my experience.

The Ovation is a great airplane, but it does poop out above 11,000 feet even with the 310 HP engine.  Yes, you can get it a lot higher, but the price you pay is time.  I've had to divert a couple of times in the Ovation because I couldn't get above the weather safely.  Sometimes coming West I've had to truck along at C172 speed because of MEAs and winds aloft.

If you're back East, the Ovation is probably the better buy.  Out West I like the option of the turbo and the Bravo.  From a cost standpoint all airplanes are expensive to own and maintain properly.  The Bravo is going to cost you all in between 25,000 and 35,000 per year to own based on my experience of about 150 hours/year.  Some years are going to more expensive than others.  Last year was much more expensive than the upper amount indicated because I did some optional things to it and one non optional thing like having to reseal the tanks.  I also put in the newer braking system that those planes past my serial number already had.

Fuel burn on the Bravo ROP is 18 gal/hr at 75% power.  The Ovation is about 15.5 gal/hour.  Fuel and oil are the least of your airplane expenses.

The turbo and waste gate are additional items that will have to be overhauled mid-time on the Bravo engine.

For me, I wanted the turbo and haven't looked back.  You just have more options with it.  For some unknown to me reason, for the past few years Bravos have been given away, so it's a good time to buy.

[kmyfm20s]

On the last NA vs Turbo thread I looked up all the turbo participants on the thread by tail number on FlightAware, I think it was a total of 5 turbo planes. Since January of this year non of them flew higher than 11K and only 2 of them was taking off at an airport at 5K. I love turbos and have turbo envy but it needs to fit your mission. I don't fly in ice and I won't fly in IMC unless I can glide to an area that has a minuimum of 1000' ceilings on my route. I fly my 310hp Eagle often into Mammoth, Wyoming, Idaho and Colorado with no problem and am impressed with the performance. I also go into the high teens for cruise if needed. It's not a turbo but still impresssive. If I could get my plane turbo normalized I would consider that but the simplicity, economy and performance of an Ovation is hard to beat. My personal observation with friends that have turbos is they have a lot more maintenance issues than I do. A couple of people I know have had turbos go out on takeoff and climb out and 2 people I know have had turbos fail in flight and have done deadstick landings(clamps came off on T210's). They also go through more cylinders, rebuild turbos early and exhaust systems, again that's my observation and discussion at my home field MSC. Up until this year I flew my plane 2 to 3 times a week to go betweeen offices and it is a turn key plane with no significant maintenance issues.  I'm a big guy at 230lbs and tend to carry a lot off gear when I go on my long trips. When I was comparing between a M and R for my mission profile the funny thing was with my flight block times where faster in the R because I could go non stop. Sure many people say they don't want to fly more than 2 hours for a pee break but that's not the most efficient use of a turbo charged airplane. In my case with the S there was the bonus in higher useful load. So for me the R or S fit my flight mission perfectly for others it will be the M. You will love either plane!

[MooneyMitch]

As I suspected Mr Cornfield Lover, you are receiving some excellent information here.  

Ah, the beauty of MooneySpace!