Jump to content

Bravo vs 252 Confused


Recommended Posts

Andy it good to compare and contrast the virtues of our fleet. IMO all Mooney’s are great airplanes this is a Mooney website for those who forgot. Lay out your typical missions then pick the plane that fits most. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Danb said:

Andy it good to compare and contrast the virtues of our fleet. IMO all Mooney’s are great airplanes this is a Mooney website for those who forgot. Lay out your typical missions then pick the plane that fits most. 

Yeah? Well my C is better than your Bravo! :P

(I was just over on the other thread about politics and might've gotten a little worked up. :)  I really do agree with your statement and always have.)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am getting my multi rating next month and am pondering the whole twin thing. I have the Bravo and a Saratoga  and as I approach retiring hopefully in the next five years the thought is consolidating down to one plane which might blend the attributes of the two that I have.  I really love both of the planes that I have, one is like a flying Porsche, and the other a flying suburban.  The Bravo though never ceases to amaze me. It is an incredible traveling machine. My wife and I went back-and-forth between Atlanta and Niagara Falls just this past week in a little over three hours each way in the high teens above the weather in cool smooth air.  The dispatch reliability has been incredible, and my last two annuals have been under $5000. It would be tough for me to part with my Bravo. I do not know of any  twins that could do all that, much less on about 140 gallons of avgas round-trip.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Bravoman said:

I am getting my multi rating next month and am pondering the whole twin thing. I have the Bravo and a Saratoga  and as I approach retiring hopefully in the next five years the thought is consolidating down to one plane which might blend the attributes of the two that I have.  I really love both of the planes that I have, one is like a flying Porsche, and the other a flying suburban.  The Bravo though never ceases to amaze me. It is an incredible traveling machine. My wife and I went back-and-forth between Atlanta and Niagara Falls just this past week in a little over three hours each way in the high teens above the weather in cool smooth air.  The dispatch reliability has been incredible, and my last two annuals have been under $5000. It would be tough for me to part with my Bravo. I do not know of any  twins that could do all that, much less on about 140 gallons of avgas round-trip.  

I can only speak to the B55 Baron, which seems as though it would suit you well if you do go to a twin. You'll hear stories of them burning 32 GPH in cruise, and they will if you don't manage the engine well. LOP, they burn no more than 24 GPH and can be run as little as 16 GPH but that's pretty lean. 20 GPH seems to be the "sweet spot" at least for me. In the 8,000-12,000 ft cruise range that should get you about 180 KTAS with a useful load of 1,700+ lb, nose baggage in addition to a baggage area in the cabin and six seats if you want them. Most fly it as a four seater.

I've outlined on this site previously comparing cost of ownership of my 231 versus B55 which I owned back to back. The executive summary is it costs about 50% more to own and fly a twin. I have been consistent with that value among the many singles and twins I have owned. 

If you think flying a Bravo is like flying a Porsche, flying a B55 would be a Ferrari.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Bravoman said:

I am getting my multi rating next month and am pondering the whole twin thing. I have the Bravo and a Saratoga  and as I approach retiring hopefully in the next five years the thought is consolidating down to one plane which might blend the attributes of the two that I have.  I really love both of the planes that I have, one is like a flying Porsche, and the other a flying suburban.  The Bravo though never ceases to amaze me. It is an incredible traveling machine. My wife and I went back-and-forth between Atlanta and Niagara Falls just this past week in a little over three hours each way in the high teens above the weather in cool smooth air.  The dispatch reliability has been incredible, and my last two annuals have been under $5000. It would be tough for me to part with my Bravo. I do not know of any  twins that could do all that, much less on about 140 gallons of avgas round-trip.  

Exactly, I think it’s all about perspective and mission.  If you’re using the bravo to fly 100 nm trips and hamburger runs then 18gph gets annoying.  However, if you’re using it on 700-900nm trips which can be flown in only slightly longer total time than commercial, and you can leave when you want, skip security, it starts looking like one of the best deals in private aviation.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Davidv said:

Exactly, I think it’s all about perspective and mission.  If you’re using the bravo to fly 100 nm trips and hamburger runs then 18gph gets annoying.  However, if you’re using it on 700-900nm trips which can be flown in only slightly longer total time than commercial, and you can leave when you want, skip security, it starts looking like one of the best deals in private aviation.  

If all of the places we needed to go were served by commercial service, I would likely not own a plane. But for me, it seems I have to go through hell (aka Atlanta) to get anywhere I want to go. Then, I drive an hour or more to actually get to my final destination. Of course the places where I would land when traveling commercial are notorious for having some horrible traffic. A couple of examples - 

  • Pell City to Bay City - 580 nm. 4 Mooney hours vs. 5 1/2 commercial hours (depending on Houston traffic)
  • Pell City to Lakeland - 406 nm. <3 Mooney hours vs. 4 commercial hours (depending on Tampa traffic)

As long as I am in the "before retirement" stage, we take commercial when there is a specific time limit or excessive distance for the current bladder limitations. In a couple of years when I clock out for the last time at the office, we will only adhere to the bladder restrictions and then probably turn them into an opportunity to spend some time on the ground exploring the current stop.

All this is to say matching the mission to the plane and the current stage of life helps narrow down the selection.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, KLRDMD said:

There are a lot of experimentals that disprove that theory.

Is there?  The only 4 place 1000#+ useful load aircraft I could find that compared to mooney efficiency was the Lancair 4.  A tad more expensive... the killer is the insurance.  The accident rates are horrible and basically you cannot insure them ( i have heard 12k a year!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, KLRDMD said:

I can only speak to the B55 Baron, which seems as though it would suit you well if you do go to a twin. You'll hear stories of them burning 32 GPH in cruise, and they will if you don't manage the engine well. LOP, they burn no more than 24 GPH and can be run as little as 16 GPH but that's pretty lean. 20 GPH seems to be the "sweet spot" at least for me. In the 8,000-12,000 ft cruise range that should get you about 180 KTAS with a useful load of 1,700+ lb, nose baggage in addition to a baggage area in the cabin and six seats if you want them. Most fly it as a four seater.

I've outlined on this site previously comparing cost of ownership of my 231 versus B55 which I owned back to back. The executive summary is it costs about 50% more to own and fly a twin. I have been consistent with that value among the many singles and twins I have owned. 

If you think flying a Bravo is like flying a Porsche, flying a B55 would be a Ferrari.

 Actually, my goal would be to find something that could comfortably cruise higher, in the high teens and low 20s. The Bravo spoiled me in this regard. I have heard about P Barons, but don’t know much about them. I would imagine they burn considerably more than what you are talking about, and there is the obvious cost and complexity of pressurization.  A hangar neighbor of mine appears to love his, although I have never talked about the nitty-gritty of the performance, fuel consumption, and costs with him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Davidv said:

Exactly, I think it’s all about perspective and mission.  If you’re using the bravo to fly 100 nm trips and hamburger runs then 18gph gets annoying.  However, if you’re using it on 700-900nm trips which can be flown in only slightly longer total time than commercial, and you can leave when you want, skip security, it starts looking like one of the best deals in private aviation.  

I always say the Mooney “ beats Delta” door to door on everything on my side of the Mississippi. And likely a good bit on the other side as well. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll weigh in on the Bravo vs 252 as I just went through this and ended up with a Bravo. First, the mission drives the bird. If you need long haul, high alt, built-in O2, FIKI, dual redundancy, etc., Bravo's have all those options and still have 950-1000# of useful. 252s don't have that useful load unless they have the Encore mod and I don't think they have FIKI, just TKS. I went with a Bravo because I commute 650NM and fly year-round. Additionally, the Bravo will go everywhere I want non-stop and it'll do it at 185-200kts (alt depending).

I really liked the 252 Encore and Rocket, but finding those models with the avionics, TKS (no FIKI), O2, etc., is hard. They are out there, but I didn't have the time to wait for the Unicorn Encore. If you want a great plane to put-put around home station, small jumps for your hamburger, and for XCs, the 252 is hard to beat.

I learned a while ago about the time/money equation. What's your time worth? For me, I absolutely need a plane that gets me from PT A to PT B as fast as I can afford because my time is more valuable. That drove me to a Bravo.

Lastly, if I could afford a turbine, I'd be flying that. But I can't, so I'm flying what I can afford.

Fly Safe,
Safety Forum Mod

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:   The Bravo is also a "long body" compared to the mid-body of the K.  You get more room in the baggage but your 4-seat passengers have the same room.

 

 

I thought some of the length increase went to rear seat leg room. Is this incorrect?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are going to buy a Bravo, make sure it doesn't have a Plessy Gear Actuator.  If it does, discount the plane by $18,000 or don't buy it.  They are not made any more so the back spring is not replaceable.  The back spring should be replaced every 1,000 hours.  If that spring breaks there is no way for the gear to work either electrically or by backup.  That means ultimately buying a new gear actuator.  New they are $18,000.  If you can find a rebuilt one, then expect to pay somewhere around $10,000.   I have known a few surprised buyers.

At one point during Annual a number of years ago, the shop I was using at the time had an issue with my non Plessy actuator.  Since they had a new Plessy available, they replaced the old one with the Plessy--for free.  Later, Plessy went out of business.  After a few years, I just proactively replaced it with a rebuilt one when Tom, at Top Gun, was rebuilding them.  I knew he was close to retiring, and I had better get it while the getting was good.  He retired shortly, thereafter.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was not looking for an Encore when I found and bought mine. I was looking for a FIKI Bravo or Ovation.  I was looking for more capability and fewer trip cancellations than I was getting from my J. I didn't even know about Encore's at the time. But I was browsing Controller and came across a listing for a FIKI Encore. It had only been on the market a day or two. I called the dealer and that day wired my deposit to lock it in. An Encore can be FIKI, the key piece is the dual alternator. A plane without dual alternators cannot be FIKI.

I think either the Bravo or Encore would satisfy my needs. I am happy with the fuel economy and range of the Encore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, donkaye said:

If you are going to buy a Bravo, make sure it doesn't have a Plessy Gear Actuator.  If it does, discount the plane by $18,000 or don't buy it.  They are not made any more so the back spring is not replaceable.  The back spring should be replaced every 1,000 hours.  If that spring breaks there is no way for the gear to work either electrically or by backup.  That means ultimately buying a new gear actuator.  New they are $18,000.  If you can find a rebuilt one, then expect to pay somewhere around $10,000.   I have known a few surprised buyers.

At one point during Annual a number of years ago, the shop I was using at the time had an issue with my non Plessy actuator.  Since they had a new Plessy available, they replaced the old one with the Plessy--for free.  Later, Plessy went out of business.  After a few years, I just proactively replaced it with a rebuilt one when Tom, at Top Gun, was rebuilding them.  I knew he was close to retiring, and I had better get it while the getting was good.  He retired shortly, thereafter.

Older Bravo's lacked a lot of the newer features, like the gear actuator Don mentions and small brake calipers. Look at 97 and on, I believe, to get the better stuff. Someone correct me if I am wrong on the year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

Older Bravo's lacked a lot of the newer features, like the gear actuator Don mentions and small brake calipers. Look at 97 and on, I believe, to get the better stuff. Someone correct me if I am wrong on the year.

You're right, Mike.  I missed  the 4 puck brake system by 1 serial number.  Mine is 106 and the new ones were 107.  I have a 1991, so that was the year they changed.  I'm not sure what year they started the new interiors, but I think it was around 1996.  

I waited 20 years before upgrading the brakes.  During  that time the kit went from $4,500 to $8,500.  However, I'm not one bit sorry I did the upgrade.  A J braking system on a 3,368 pound airplane was just not adequate.  My thought process originally was that pucks were inexpensive and I could buy a whole lot of them for the cost of the new braking system.  As time went on and A&P prices went up along with gas prices to get over to have them changed, that original thought process proved incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

Older Bravo's lacked a lot of the newer features, like the gear actuator Don mentions and small brake calipers. Look at 97 and on, I believe, to get the better stuff. Someone correct me if I am wrong on the year.

Speaking of breaks, and at the risk of a sort of topic diversion - there is also a brake STC that this reminds me of - from a third party company that makes red annodized brakes.  I forgot whats the name of the company - I saw the tent at Oshkosh.  AT $8500 for the upgrade that Don mentions, I would think this other companies brakes are competitive - they are supposed to stop better and be much lighter than anything OEM.  I wonder if anyone has done this upgrade.

Edited by aviatoreb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Speaking of breaks, and at the risk of a sort of topic diversion - there is also a brake STC that this reminds me of - from a third party company that makes red annodized brakes.  I forgot whats the name of the company - I saw the tent at Oshkosh.  AT $8500 for the upgrade that Don mentions, I would think this other companies brakes are competitive - they are supposed to stop better and be much lighter than anything OEM.  I wonder if anyone has done this upgrade.

The brake upgrade is pretty substantial.  It required all new axles, new thicker disks, and new inner gear doors.  The gear doors aren't just a remove and replace. They need to be fitted, so it takes an experienced shop who knows how to do metal work.  Top Gun told  me they often have shops call them asking why the doors don't fit and are surprised when told they have to fit them.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, donkaye said:

The brake upgrade is pretty substantial.  It required all new axles, new thicker disks, and new inner gear doors.  The gear doors aren't just a remove and replace. They need to be fitted, so it takes an experienced shop who knows how to do metal work.  Top Gun told  me they often have shops call them asking why the doors don't fit and are surprised when told they have to fit them.

That makes a later model Bravo worth almost 20K more than an earlier one on just those 2 items alone, and something a lot of people dont realize when they have a "barn find" 130K runout 93 Bravo.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mooneyflyfast said:

Quote:   The Bravo is also a "long body" compared to the mid-body of the K.  You get more room in the baggage but your 4-seat passengers have the same room.

 

 

I thought some of the length increase went to rear seat leg room. Is this incorrect?

 

 

 

All of the extra cabin length between mid and long bodies is in the baggage compartment.   This works out fine because the mid bodies already have ample foot/leg room for most rear passengers.

Edited by Shadrach
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That to me puts the most desirable bravos in the 97-99 range (the Ovations too IMO). The 2000+ birds are priced too high (also IMO). It’s all to easy to forget when buying this type of plane that the operating expense will be $25k per year and an extra 15-20 at the time of purchase (for a better plane) is a drop in the bucket. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mlm the 25,000 is a good estimate albeit on the low side, the maintenance estimate is based on who does the r/m and not putting off items. I only use MSC’s hopefully they keep my plane in top condition. I know many who cut corners or put off items until later I believe it’s a big mistake doing that in a Bravo 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Bravoman said:

I always say the Mooney “ beats Delta” door to door on everything on my side of the Mississippi. And likely a good bit on the other side as well. 

"a Bravo beats Delta" lol (yes and many other mooneys do too)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, irishpilot said:

If you want a great plane to put-put around home station, small jumps for your hamburger, and for XCs, the 252 is hard to beat.

Seriously? Your Bravo might beat my 252 from A to B if solo. But with a "full" load, two people and luggage, the 252 is likely quicker just because of better range. 

The Bravo is an excellent cross country machine, but no better than the 252 and for the really long cross countries... not as good.

BTW there are 252's and Encore's with FIKI.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.