KSMooniac Posted July 9, 2019 Report Posted July 9, 2019 Hmmm. Not sure that makes sense. I get the 50 to 60HP difference. Can anyone that owns a Bravo comment on LOP? Don has explained some... But there is something unique in the Bravo induction/ignition/combustion arena that has historically been problematic for those trying to run LOP. Some can, some can't. GAMI has tried over the years but as far as I know haven't been able to identify exactly what is happening and provide a reliable fix. Don has mentioned in the past that his first engine ran LOP with GAMI's but after it was overhauled, it would not! Perhaps he'll expand more on the subject... Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk Quote
carusoam Posted July 9, 2019 Report Posted July 9, 2019 Some left over details... 1) If your financial first officer rides in the back... they buy the Long Body first... the extra surrounding volume feels more comfortable... fancy folding seat backs, make it a pick-up truck like volume back there... 2) The ability to run LOP smoothly at altitude is a great feeling as well... the only thing the Bravo didn’t get was nice curvy balanced intake tubes... one day Lycoming will deliver... (prediction) So... If your CFO is riding shotgun... and LOP is better for somebody else... Go M20M,,, Bravo! Turbo MSers like the top of the line stuff... 252 262 Encore Rocket Bravo Acclaim Even the entry level to the turbo world is an NA IO360 with a RayJay turbo added on... aka TNIO360... There are also some add ons and some conversions... to upgrade the 231, the baseline M20K Manifold pressure controllers Intercoolers Engine instruments be aware of the different engine Blocks available... MB engine. There may be some of the older less appreciated blocks in circulation... It is a bit of a challenge to know what you want until after you have bought one... so, keep studying... Best regards, -a- Quote
Danb Posted July 9, 2019 Report Posted July 9, 2019 4 hours ago, M20F said: That I would disagree on that part. I can get 4x175 people, 100lbs of baggage, and 40 gallons which is easily 500 NM range. Mike like I mentioned it’s a 3-4 person under the right circumstances, ie,4 250 guys make your Mooney less than a four person plane, were not a Bo A36, 210 or Saratoga all planes have plus’s and minus’s Quote
gsxrpilot Posted July 9, 2019 Report Posted July 9, 2019 6 hours ago, Davidv said: I can feel a response from @gsxrpilot pilot coming on :). I love my Bravo but the fuel burn of a 252 would be nice... Damn! I've been in the air all morning. I own and fly a 252... soon to be a converted Encore... not as good as a Factory Encore, but you take what you can find. Factory Encores are rare and priced accordingly. I've got dibs on @Bryan's if he ever upgrades up to a kerosene burner. I briefly looked at Bravo's but a post on this very forum from @donkaye convinced me I couldn't afford one. I would rather own a plane that I can afford to fly as much as I want without ever looking at the cost, rather than own a plane that is at the ragged edge of my financial ability. I could buy a Bravo, but I'd have to budget the flying and the maintenance. The 252 can't hurt me financially. So if you can afford the care and feeding of a Bravo, by all means buy one! As @Bryan said, the 252 Encore is the very peak of speed and efficiency for a certificated four place piston single above 12,000. Below that, the J will beat it. I can carry a full load, 1000 lbs, further, faster in my 252 than a Bravo. Because I'll do it on less gas. And as everyone knows, the best speed mod available, is being able to skip a gas stop. If you're willing to spend the $$$ on gas, you can always go faster. And if I had a better checking account, I'd own a Bravo. But as it is, I'm pretty happy with my 252. And actually, if it wasn't for the O2 deprivation addition, I'd stay down low and do better with a J. Reference the flights of @201er. 2 1 Quote
MIm20c Posted July 9, 2019 Report Posted July 9, 2019 I’ve been following the market very closely for the past 1.5 years. I’ve been through a lot of log books, laid my eyes on multiple aircraft, and talked with a few owners at length. Still haven’t found the one I’m looking for but admit I’m being extremely picky for my next purchase. One reason why I’ve closed in on the 262/252/encore is the ability to just idle around in no particular direction for fun flying. Also with a younger family the performance/economy in the 10-12k range is very good. I feel like the bravo / rocket are a better choice for a pure traveling machine. However, if I wanted a bravo I would’ve flown Andy’s plane home a month ago. Quote
Igor_U Posted July 9, 2019 Report Posted July 9, 2019 47 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said: I could buy a Bravo, but I'd have to budget the flying and the maintenance. The 252 can't hurt me financially. Famous last words, right? Interesting that you say this as per Air Power website Encore rebuilt engine cost more then Bravo (OH'd). I'd like to hear form pilots owning both, MX only cost. I know about FF and it'd be hard for me swallow 18gph considering my F burns 9-9.5 gph in cruse. 2 Quote
M20F Posted July 9, 2019 Report Posted July 9, 2019 1 hour ago, Danb said: Mike like I mentioned it’s a 3-4 person under the right circumstances, ie,4 250 guys make your Mooney less than a four person plane, were not a Bo A36, 210 or Saratoga all planes have plus’s and minus’s We can spin the numbers both ways to make a point. I weigh 155 on a good day and for the example pushed my own weight up. The classics function very well on the weight/range/speed issue. I would agree the thirstier engines give up a lot of range to get weight and they are for the most part 2 seaters. Quote
HXG Posted July 9, 2019 Report Posted July 9, 2019 I love my gas guzzling Bravo. But, I certainly don’t look at 252s/ Encores as lesser airplanes. Their speeds are amazingly similar with significant less fuel burn. I would be proud to own either one. I just happened to find a local FIKI BRAVO for sale that I wanted more than the available 252s so I traded in my Super Decathlon and went for my dream plane. No regrets, but that new engine cost will be brutal. 3 Quote
M20F Posted July 9, 2019 Report Posted July 9, 2019 1 hour ago, gsxrpilot said: So if you can afford the care and feeding of a Bravo, by all means buy one! Airplanes are for the most part illogical investments but once you start getting to Bravo $$ almost every twin looks better to me. 1 Quote
DonMuncy Posted July 9, 2019 Report Posted July 9, 2019 7 minutes ago, M20F said: Airplanes are for the most part illogical investments but once you start getting to Bravo $$ almost every twin looks better to me. Get out the popcorn 3 3 Quote
HXG Posted July 9, 2019 Report Posted July 9, 2019 8 minutes ago, M20F said: Airplanes are for the most part illogical investments but once you start getting to Bravo $$ almost every twin looks better to me. Having flown many different piston twins, I did consider a Baron (the only twin that interests me), but their acquisition and operating costs are higher for a newer plane that I considered on par with my Bravo, service ceiling is lower, and I couldn’t justify a bigger airplane and bigger hangar when most of my flying is solo. Quote
smccray Posted July 9, 2019 Report Posted July 9, 2019 1 hour ago, Igor_U said: I know about FF and it'd be hard for me swallow 18gph considering my F burns 9-9.5 gph in cruse. Bad news for you... The F is pretty close, but the J and the K are the sweet spot in terms of operating cost per mile- really for any traveling airplane. Any upgrade is going to be a significant increase in cost. There’s so much efficiency in those airframes there’s nothing you can do to match it. 18 minutes ago, M20F said: Airplanes are for the most part illogical investments but once you start getting to Bravo $$ almost every twin looks better to me. Sweet spot is a B55 Barron. Get into a B58 similar vintage as a Bravo and the purchase price will be double the price tag of the M20M. 1 Quote
gsxrpilot Posted July 9, 2019 Report Posted July 9, 2019 3 minutes ago, smccray said: but the J and the K are the sweet spot in terms of operating cost per mile- really for any traveling airplane. Any upgrade is going to be a significant increase in cost. There’s so much efficiency in those airframes there’s nothing you can do to match it. And this is why I fly an M20K 252. Quote
M20F Posted July 10, 2019 Report Posted July 10, 2019 16 minutes ago, smccray said: The F is pretty close, but the J and the K are the sweet spot in terms of operating cost per mile- really for any traveling airplane. Turbo normalized J is pretty much the greatest airplane of all time. Quote
M20F Posted July 10, 2019 Report Posted July 10, 2019 26 minutes ago, smccray said: Sweet spot is a B55 Barron. Get into a B58 similar vintage as a Bravo and the purchase price will be double the price tag of the M20M. Aerostar 1 Quote
MIm20c Posted July 10, 2019 Report Posted July 10, 2019 17 minutes ago, M20F said: Aerostar Just seeing that in print makes my wallet quiver. Want to own but the 4 turbos and controllers alone would eclipse what I have in my C. 3 Quote
gsxrpilot Posted July 10, 2019 Report Posted July 10, 2019 You can always go faster with more money and more fuel. Personally I'd skip the Aerostar and go straight to an MU-2. But getting from A to B in an airplane isn't done cheaper than an M20J or a 252. 1 Quote
Rickymooneyflyer Posted July 10, 2019 Author Report Posted July 10, 2019 4 hours ago, carusoam said: Turbo MSers like the top of the line stuff... 252 262 Encore Rocket Bravo Acclaim Nice chart that sums it up Quote
Hank Posted July 10, 2019 Report Posted July 10, 2019 24 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said: You can always go faster with more money and more fuel. Personally I'd skip the Aerostar and go straight to an MU-2. But getting from A to B in an airplane isn't done cheaper than an M20J or a 252. The savings in Capital from buying a C will pay for years of extra fuel . . . . And the additional time on each flight won't be very noticeable unless you compare me to Stinky Pants' eternal flights; I'd need one or two stops for fuel and walking around! And my O-360 should require less maintenance between OHs, as well as providing additional payback then, too. The plane will carry me and 470 additional pounds for 5 hours with IFR reserves, except I don't plan to ever sit in it that long again. Then again, I don't need a turbo, but still agree that the Encore is about the ultimate Mooney ever! 3 Quote
gsxrpilot Posted July 10, 2019 Report Posted July 10, 2019 3 minutes ago, Hank said: The savings in Capital from buying a C will pay for years of extra fuel . . . . And the additional time on each flight won't be very noticeable unless you compare me to Stinky Pants' eternal flights; I'd need one or two stops for fuel and walking around! And my O-360 should require less maintenance between OHs, as well as providing additional payback then, too. The plane will carry me and 470 additional pounds for 5 hours with IFR reserves, except I don't plan to ever sit in it that long again. Then again, I don't need a turbo, but still agree that the Encore is about the ultimate Mooney ever! I couldn't agree more. I really like my M20C (6XM RIP). I wouldn't have sold the C to get a J. Even though J's are nicer, and even more efficient. But flying around the west, I really wanted a turbo. And if you're gonna go turbo, the Encore is the pinnacle. A half step behind, is a 252 converted to an Encore. 1 Quote
KLRDMD Posted July 10, 2019 Report Posted July 10, 2019 2 hours ago, M20F said: Airplanes are for the most part illogical investments but once you start getting to Bravo $$ almost every twin looks better to me. And that's when I bought my first twin. My Bravo burned 19.4 GPH in cruise and I figured if I was going to burn almost 20 GPH I wanted a second engine. 1 Quote
KLRDMD Posted July 10, 2019 Report Posted July 10, 2019 2 hours ago, HXG said: Having flown many different piston twins, I did consider a Baron (the only twin that interests me), but their acquisition and operating costs are higher for a newer plane that I considered on par with my Bravo, service ceiling is lower, and I couldn’t justify a bigger airplane and bigger hangar when most of my flying is solo. A Baron will fit in the same hangar as a Bravo. I've owned both types and had them in the same hangar. I've gone back and forth on the single-twin thing. Of the 16 airplanes I've owned, 5 were twins. I believe twins are safer, others believe otherwise. I also believe that a well maintained single is (reasonably) safe. I paid significantly less for my Barons (I've had two) than I paid for my Bravo and that comes with lower insurance premiums. Most of the time I flew my Baron at 10 GPH per side for about 185 KTAS. I flew the Bravo at 19.4 GPH for 195 KTAS. BUT . . . I only have to climb for 3-5 minutes to get to a typical Baron cruise altitude where I had to climb 15-20 minutes in the Bravo to get to an efficient cruising altitude. Single - twin - turbo - normally aspirated. They're all good and they each have different advantages and disadvantages. 4 Quote
KLRDMD Posted July 10, 2019 Report Posted July 10, 2019 1 hour ago, gsxrpilot said: But getting from A to B in an airplane isn't done cheaper than an M20J or a 252. There are a lot of experimentals that disprove that theory. 1 Quote
gsxrpilot Posted July 10, 2019 Report Posted July 10, 2019 8 minutes ago, KLRDMD said: There are a lot of experimentals that disprove that theory. Of course, so as I stated earlier in this thread... Four seat, certificated, piston singles... Quote
HXG Posted July 10, 2019 Report Posted July 10, 2019 (edited) 51 minutes ago, KLRDMD said: A Baron will fit in the same hangar as a Bravo. I've owned both types and had them in the same hangar. That’s true. The wingspan is only a foot longer or so. The Baron is a great plane, which has always been on my short list of desirable planes. The BE55s and BE58s that most appealed to me cost more than my Bravo. The few that I’ve flown have had more maintenance issues/costs than I’ve experienced on my Bravo (knock on wood). It sounds like you have chosen and maintained your Barons well if your costs were less or similar to your Bravos. They climb well. I wish they had higher service ceilings (excluding older TC turbos, Colemill conversions etc.). Twins can be safer in the hands of proficient pilots. I’m happy with my choice though Sorry for the thread drift. Edited July 10, 2019 by HXG Quote
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.