Upgraded Bravo vs. Acclaim

[Niko182]

53 minutes ago, alextstone said:

I owned (or more accurately, the bank owned and I flew for a fee each month) an Acclaim from 2007 to 2010.  Last summer, I purchased a '95 Bravo.  Both aircraft have been a joy to fly.  If I could afford to, I would definitely go back to the Acclaim however.   The GFC 700, climb performance, cruise performance and simple engine management are amazing!  That said, the Bravo, for half the money is a lot more than half the utility and fun.  Whichever you choose, calculate an operating and maintenance budget for each, then double it for the Acclaim and triple it for the Bravo.  These planes are not cheap to operate and maintain properly.  

Please post pics of your choice!

Im still trying to figure out why the acclaim is cheaper to own than the bravo. The only difference i can think about is cowl flaps. Both have insanely expensive engines. One burns about 2 to 3 gallons more per hour. The other statistically has a higher chance of making tbo. Just curious why the acclaim is cheaper than the bravo.

[alextstone]

2 minutes ago, Niko182 said:

Im still trying to figure out why the acclaim is cheaper to own than the bravo. The only difference i can think about is cowl flaps. Both have insanely expensive engines. One burns about 2 to 3 gallons more per hour. The other statistically has a higher chance of making tbo. Just curious why the acclaim is cheaper than the bravo.

My bias has no basis in good stats.  It is only my experience.  I think it has a lot to do with owning a 5 - 10 year old airplane vs a 15-30 year old airplane.  In my case, I purchased the Bravo September 1st after a pre-buy and annual inspection  with a supposedly clean bill of health.  $30,000 and three months later, I am still finding issues that should have been identified by the Mooney Service Center that performed the work.  So, is my math everyone's experience?  Probably not.  I still would not trade the speed,. FIKI and high altitude capability for the money!

Alex

[L. Trotter]

The topic of how to go high, safely, year-round for little $$ has been a long debated question (and one that is still enjoyable to entertain). I know I have struggled with the decision with in the past year. This is my summary with the mission requiring 1. Consistent alt >12k  2. Year-round availability  3. Ice encounter options (FIKI)  4. Speed  5. Efficiency  6. Overall maintenance costs  7. Comfort  8. 2 people regularly plus a 3rd and rare 4th person  9. Average 300-600 NM trips :

Start with the power plant(s)- Turbine vs Reciprocating. Who wouldn't want a Turbine !! Acquisition cost alone kill this option not to mention maintenance fees even if the aircraft was given for free. So, turbocharged engine it is. Yes, they cost more to operate than NA engines, but that is the cost to go high-reliably. I have owned a 310HP Ovation thinking it would do the job above the weather in the teens, simply not so. After about 13K  that beautiful bird really starts to choke and your altitude option vanishes quickly. For perspective, I don't think climbing at 50-100 FPM a viable option. Mountain wave will beat you at that rate.  I've owned a turbo twin Cessna (also a nice plane), but yearly ownership costs are very high-well over double any single I've owned. One could talk about safety in regards to engine redundancy, but I'll omit this debated topic. 

FIKI vs non-FIKI- Not much to discuss here. Year-round flying in the northern tier over mountains. You will encounter ice, period-even in the summer. FIKI is an option out, not an option to stay in the situation. I just put a FIKI TKS system in my Acclaim.... a 62K ouch. If you need a new prop/spinner add another 16+K. Find a plane already equipped, it's cheaper that way. FIKI is definitely the icing on the cake (no pun intended) and will significantly improve utility.

New vs Old- I see this as a pay me now or pay me later question. A newer plane (typically) will have less maintenance/replacement costs compared to an older model. I'm thinking of perhaps a 15+ year age difference. A newer model may also bring additional expensive equipment along as well. Items such as autopilot, oxygen, integrated glass, airbags, air conditioning, back up electrical system, upgraded interior and possibly nicer paint.

Speed/Efficiency/comfort- Several possible brands to choose from....well not really. Mooney stands alone in my view. Sure there are other nice manufacturers to choose from, but considering this topic not many will argue that Mooney excels in this area. I'm 6'1" 200# and find my mooney to be comfortable. Sure, the twin was like a Suburban but not any more/less comfortable. Pressurization is a beautiful thing, but all the reasonable options will exceed a GA budget faster than a turbine burns fuel.

Summary- I considered many different options (turbine Lancair, turbine conversions (several makes), meridian, old TBM, light twins, Bo's and even Cirrus/Columbia type).  I found spending as much as I could afford on a turbo charged FIKI Mooney to be the best option for the above requirements. The saying "buy your 2nd plane 1st" is true. The "get there itis" is a real phenomenon especially when the aircraft is used for business and must be ready to go on a regular basis. There are so many variables to consider when making a safe flight. You can mitigate many issues with a properly chosen aircraft. It's a bad place to be at 15K ft starting to pick up un-forecasted ice in the wrong plane. If you can afford/justify a FIKI Mooney Acclaim you will not be disappointed. I believe it is the best BANG for the BUCK.

 

[Bravoman]

I

6 hours ago, alextstone said:

My bias has no basis in good stats.  It is only my experience.  I think it has a lot to do with owning a 5 - 10 year old airplane vs a 15-30 year old airplane.  In my case, I purchased the Bravo September 1st after a pre-buy and annual inspection  with a supposedly clean bill of health.  $30,000 and three months later, I am still finding issues that should have been identified by the Mooney Service Center that performed the work.  So, is my math everyone's experience?  Probably not.  I still would not trade the speed,. FIKI and high altitude capability for the money!

Alex

If it makes you feel any better I put a ton into my 98 in the first couple years after I bought it in late 13. Not due to things missed on prebuy but rather replacing all major system components so that I could rely on it to be a rock solid IFR traveling machine. Then after I thought I had it pretty much squared away the case cracked on the engine as I was taking off requiring something of an expedited return to the field. That resulted in the expense of a factory reman and all the trimmings which I definitely was not anticipating. This is not even to mention avionics upgrades which can’t really be considered for what we are talking about here. 

[alextstone]

5 hours ago, Bravoman said:

I

If it makes you feel any better I put a ton into my 98 in the first couple years after I bought it in late 13. Not due to things missed on prebuy but rather replacing all major system components so that I could rely on it to be a rock solid IFR traveling machine. Then after I thought I had it pretty much squared away the case cracked on the engine as I was taking off requiring something of an expedited return to the field. That resulted in the expense of a factory reman and all the trimmings which I definitely was not anticipating. This is not even to mention avionics upgrades which can’t really be considered for what we are talking about here. 

OK @Bravoman  you just made my problems seem trivial!  Wow, cracked case and engine replacement?!?  What were the “tells” on takeoff that you experienced?  

[Bravoman]

4 hours ago, alextstone said:

OK @Bravoman  you just made my problems seem trivial!  Wow, cracked case and engine replacement?!?  What were the “tells” on takeoff that you experienced?  

 I was actually taking off out of Dalton where my MSC is located and at about 500 ft AGL I started to see moisture on the windscreen  which was puzzling because it was a bright sunny day. Within a second or two after that the windscreen was covered with oil. The engine never lost power and although I had to side slip it back to the runway due to no forward visibility I made a pretty decent landing and I’m still thankful that it happened in VMC at my MSC’s field.  The case cracked due to what is believed to be a broken lifter and  it did not make sense to overhaul the engine because of the unknowns as to the internal damage so I went with a reman which I am very happy with.  The aircraft and engine had about a 1100 hours when that happened. Quite frankly, although  the aircraft was always hangared and well cared for, I do not think it  was flown enough before I bought it.

 The bottom line is that with all of that I  feel like I have basically a new airplane for a good bit less than half the cost of a new Acclaim. When I was at Lakeland, I noticed that the Acclaim MSRP is about $804,000 as I recall, so by the time you get done with tax, tag and title you’re pushing $900,000.  As many others have said around here, the cost of ownership in the first couple of years is always the highest because of the invariable shakeout.

[alextstone]

11 minutes ago, Bravoman said:

 I was actually taking off out of Dalton where my MSC is located and at about 500 ft AGL I started to see moisture on the windscreen  which was puzzling because it was a bright sunny day. Within a second or two after that the windscreen was covered with oil. The engine never lost power and although I had to side slip it back to the runway due to no forward visibility I made a pretty decent landing and I’m still thankful that it happened in VMC at my MSC’s field.  The case cracked due to what is believed to be a broken lifter and  it did not make sense to overhaul the engine because of the unknowns as to the internal damage so I went with a reman which I am very happy with.  The aircraft and engine had about a 1100 hours when that happened. Quite frankly, although  the aircraft was always hangared and well cared for, I do not think it  was flown enough before I bought it.

 The bottom line is that with all of that I  feel like I have basically a new airplane for a good bit less than half the cost of a new Acclaim. When I was at Lakeland, I noticed that the Acclaim MSRP is about $804,000 as I recall, so by the time you get done with tax, tag and title you’re pushing $900,000.  As many others have said around here, the cost of ownership in the first couple of years is always the highest because of the invariable shakeout.

Man, that is one heck of a story!  Congrats on safely landing and on getting past the headache of an engine swap.