Calling All Bravo Owners

[johnggreen]

Gentlemen:

And by "gentlemen" I mean Bravo owners.  I am not trying to be "exclusive" or "restrictive" or "snobby", but Bravo owners are the relevant audience for this topic.

I have owned a Bravo for almost 7 years now and accumulated quite a bit of experience with regard to its flying and its maintennance.  The Bravo has several characteristics that give its owners "unique" challenges as to ownership and maintennance.  I purchased my Bravo with considerable trepidation as to its maintennance challenges.  The learning curve was unnecessarily steep, but I made it to the point that I want to keep my Bravo for the foreseeable future.

The Bravo's uniqueness is largely, though not entirely, focused on the engine.  The engine has an air/oil cooling for the heads that came into being as a result of early cooling problems and the mod gives it the Bravo designation.  Further the engine requires handling that is far removed from most other engines and specifically apart from the new designs that allow LOP operations.

The first three annuals I experienced after purchase were all from Mooney Service Centers and shared two characteristics:  they were grossly overpriced and shoddy at best.  After each annual, I would have to take the airplane to my old "non-Mooney" shop to get it debugged from the annual.  After three years, I was either going to find a better solution to my Bravo maintennace or trade the airplane.  My "non-Mooney" shop assured me that they could and would maintain the airplane if I would buy them the service manuals; which I did.  There have been several issues since going back to them, but all were handled successfully including a leaking tank and a bad cylinder.

What I see as the greatest challenge to "happy" Bravo ownerhip is not mechanical talent but information.  There is, in my opinion nothing special about a "Mooney" mechanic or a "Mooney" shop other than the accumulated experience of problem areas, solutions, and part sources.

What I hope, we can develop through this blog is a sharing of both Mooney and Bravo specific information so that we can keep these airplanes in the air without undue frustration and expense.

I am the member that specifically asked for the Bravo section.  The administrator put it up for a vote and decided to go ahead.  The surprising thing to me was that there were those who opposed the Bravo specific site!  Why?  Why would they even give a damn.  Frankly, I figure that was a personal problem, and so I don't really give a damn either.  This site can be of great benefit to a lot of people, but the truth is that a J model doesn't have much in common with an Ovation and even less as to a Bravo.

Anyway, we got the Bravo section so let's try to make the most of it.  In order of importance, this is where I think we should go.

1.  First, we need as many Bravo owners as members of this site as possible.   How do we do that?

2.  Secondly, we need to point out and discuss problem areas, maintennace issues, and solutions.  AD's, service bulletins, and specific maintenance glitches should be cataloged for reference.  That will obviously have to be done outside this site.

3.  We need to form a network outside this site so that we can lean on other's resources.

That's just a starter, so, I would ask that you fellows consider my points, add your own, and lets try to make this site a real asset to all of us.  Feel free to email me at johnggreen1776@gmail.com if you want to chat outside this site.

John Green

 

[thinwing]

Not a bad idea John...i have owned turbocharged a/c before ,but this is my first Mooney...my mission dictated high altitude capability and flight into known ice....I couldnt afford an acclaim...and at the time didnt find a suitable 232/252 etc.I have only owned her 2 years with its 3rd annual coming up.I do 95% of my own annuals under ap/ai supervision as i have for all my prior aircraft over the last 30 years or so.The bravo is labor intensive...plumbing to the turbo and heads have oil lins every where...I try to do a good inspection every oil change and have caught stuff that a regular shop might have missed in between annual inspections (chaffing oil lines,fuel lines from the fuel distributor spider,and a broken spring on the turbo waste gate to mention a few).No cylinder issues yet,but i only have 500 hrs on the engine after a factory overhaul due to the crank ad.sinc kp couch

[jlunseth]

Hey, I hope you will let me participate.  I own a K 231, not a Bravo, but I am sort of feeling the waters for my next plane, which has to be turbo and with FIKI icing, and the Bravo is a prime candidate.  I would appreciate learning everything I can about the beast, having learned alot more than I would like when I first got my K.

[johnggreen]

Thinwing @ Jlunseth,

J, everybody welcome Bud;  this is a two way street, learning and sharing.  I almost didn't buy the Bravo because of the "hangar talk" in regard to maintenance and almost sold it due to the first three annuals at Mooney Service Centers.  What I have found is that the maintenance of the Bravo is certainly manageable, but I wouldn't want to get "behind the curve".  A good network of Bravo owners and mechanics can make the job much easier.

I would like to have something akin to a progressive inspection in place.  I don't mean officially with the FAA, just a set schedule of inspections that could be done at oil changes and then full blown for the annual.  I'm going to talk to some knowledgeable Mooney people to see what suggestions they have in this regard.

As to the Acclaim.  There is no doubt that it is an improved Bravo.  That being said, I've heard of some very early overhauls coming unexpectedly; probably a result of the high power settings you have to use to get the performance.  I'M NOT KNOCKING THE ACCLAIM, but I had an acquaintance who owned one and his was on the slow side.  My Bravo is on the fast side so when push came to shove, he got a grand total of 5 knots more cruise than I and had no more useful load; both planes TKS.  One advantage of the Acclaim seems to be better fuel specifics than the Lycoming, but boy, I sure do like Lycomings.  I just can't see shelling out another 250 grand for so little advantage.

Anyway, the point here is to get our collective heads together and pool info and sources for our mutual benefit.

My first two goals are to acquire/build a "progressive inspection schedule" for lack of a better term and figure out how we can catalog maintenance issues and techniques.

JG

[thinwing]

Well John interesting you should mention the early overhauls of continental powered acclaims....Our Bravos as you know got there name as the "B" mod tio 540 lycoming...an attempt to fix all the early topoverhauls being incurred at low time (300 - 400 hrs)for much the same reason...trying to get 225 kts at altitude and experiencing early valve guide wear....sur sounds famililar....with the oil bathed vave guides I bet our Bravos having had 10 years to get the bugs out will prove the more reliable...will see..sinc kp couch

[KSMooniac]

I'm a curious J owner that will wander over here from time to time since I always want to learn everything I can about all Mooneys, and for future upgrade considerations.  I didn't vote in the forum debate, but thought we didn't really "need" a Bravo forum mainly because I didn't want another sub-forum to go visit, but it obviously doesn't give me any heartburn.  Those that voted "no" could feel the same way, and not be opposed to having more Bravo topics...

In addition to the ownership management aspects John is seeking to catalog here, I'd like to see a survey of useful loads (started in another thread already) as well whether or not *your* particular TIO-540 will run LOP.  Anecdotally, some do, some do not.  It would be interesting IMO to find out how many can, and which mags they use, if they've had another engine (or overhaul) that could or couldn't, etc.  To date, my understanding is that nobody has been able to explain explicitly why some do and some don't.

As far as Bravo-unique items of interest, my initial thoughts would be centered around the turbo system obviously with questions like:

How long do all of the oil and fuel hoses typically last under the Bravo cowl

How long do the turbochargers and assorted bits in the system (check valves, wastegates, exhaust, etc.) last

How many folks have made a full TBO run (post-Bravo Mod) without significant top end work

Other items of interest:

How long do gear biscuits last on the heavier Bravos (other longbody owners could certainly chime in)

What are the MX requirements for the TKS system, and what issues have been observed

Do engine accessories have any unique issues under the Bravo cowl

How high do Bravo owners typically fly on a trip of more than 200 nm for example

[johnggreen]

Scott,

All good questions and I look forward to the responses of other Bravo owners.

LOP, Lycoming says hell no and I know of no one foolish enough to try.  Go past peak and my engine gets rough as a washboard.  I almost always fly best power 1650TIT, period.  At 15,000', gross weight, low power setting 2200/28", 1650TIT, 175 TAS @ 13 gallons.  Risk a $50,000 engine overhaul for a couple of gallons.  I ain't that damn stupid.

I have had no issue with hoses in 1000 hours.  Did find a crack in an engine mount.  Easily fixed.

Had to replace a cylinder at 850 due to valve stem wear.

My biscuits are still good but I fly average 500 mile legs so I don't land much.  Also, am very careful in taxi.  Gear originally designed for a 2,500# airplane.

No accessory issues other than the Slick mags have a MTBF (mean time between failure) of about 500 hours so I overhaul them before 400 hours.  Replaced vacuum pump with AEON piston pump for reliability and to prevent carbon getting to my air driven instruments, big issue.  Has been successful in both regards.

MX, TKS, don't understand question.  Did develope leak in a fitting in the belly.  Specialty fitting, must come from manufacturer with specific swedge tool.  Make sure the belly pan is pulled during annual and system checked under pressure.

Altitudes.  The Bravo likes altitude.  Below 10,000 the air cooling system slows the plane below that of the Ovation.  It is truly at home above 10,000.  I try for 13-17m.  Also if you are 12m or above, center won't hand you off to Class C controls you pass through.  It's absolutely lonely from 12-18m and airplane so quiet you can hardly tell if you take the Bose off.  You are there by yourself.  I just don't have any CHT issues either in climb or at altitude.  Usually 370 or below.

OK fellows, it's OK for others to address these questions too.  I'm waiting.

 

JG

[FoxMike]

I am one those lucky Bravo owners who gets to replace/retire the crankshaft (AD).  Since the entire engine had to come apart I decided to major the engine.  The engine has 1150TT.  The crankcase, all the steel (gears, rods etc) are in Tulsa right now.  I hope in the next couple of weeks to get those back.  The exhaust system is just finished and the turbo, wastegate and controllers are in Visala.  Monday I will order new hoses (the original ones look OK).  I am throwing away lots parts that had would gone another thousand hours.  The engine was built by Lycoming in 1999 and fortunately has not accumulated many SB's.  This a lot of cost and effort on an engine which is getting ready to celebrate its 12 birthday and doing fine .  If it were not for the crankshaft I would have probably retired from flying before I needed to do this. Now I will be a test pilot for a lot of new parts for 100 the next hours or so.  If you have a concern about this AD applying to your engine check Lycoming SB 569A.  Lycoming recently added more cranks to the list. 

[johnggreen]

Foxmike,

It would be interesting to know, from the shops doing the various components, if there was any detectable wear.  So to say, if we kept going like this, what would probably fail first.

It almost seeems that, but for this crankshaft AD, most Bravo engines soldier on quite contentedly.

My crank was replaced at 500 hrs.  Lycoming accually did the work and wrote it off as I major.  I suspect they replaced rings, reworked valves and wrote it up.

Good luck.  The good news is that Bravo's seem to be holding their value well and the major will make the airplane a lot more sellable.

 

JG

[jetdriven]

That's pretty sad to waste 15-20K of engine time for an AD.  Shows you that "Lycoming Factory Overhauled" engines arent necessarily better than one shops can do. People still believe that though.

Quote: FoxMike

I am one those lucky Bravo owners who gets to replace/retire the crankshaft (AD).  Since the entire engine had to come apart I decided to major the engine.  The engine has 1150TT.  The crankcase, all the steel (gears, rods etc) are in Tulsa right now.  I hope in the next couple of weeks to get those back.  The exhaust system is just finished and the turbo, wastegate and controllers are in Visala.  Monday I will order new hoses (the original ones look OK).  I am throwing away lots parts that had would gone another thousand hours.  The engine was built by Lycoming in 1999 and fortunately has not accumulated many SB's.  This a lot of cost and effort on an engine which is getting ready to celebrate its 12 birthday and doing fine .  If it were not for the crankshaft I would have probably retired from flying before I needed to do this. Now I will be a test pilot for a lot of new parts for 100 the next hours or so.  If you have a concern about this AD applying to your engine check Lycoming SB 569A.  Lycoming recently added more cranks to the list. 

[jetdriven]

John, does your logbook actually say "major overhaul" or "rebuilt" in it? Reason I ask, I had a friend with a Cardinal RG, and he had to do a TDI for a prop strike and a cracked case. He paid many $ extra to have it "overhauled".   He specifically told them  to.. 19K later,  when he gets his plane back, there is a lot of meniton about replacing parts, case reworked, etc, etc and reassembled.  TSMOH remained at 500 hours. Their reply? They didnt change the rod bearings.   

Hopefully this didnt hapen to you.

Quote: johnggreen

Foxmike,

It would be interesting to know, from the shops doing the various components, if there was any detectable wear.  So to say, if we kept going like this, what would probably fail first.

It almost seeems that, but for this crankshaft AD, most Bravo engines soldier on quite contentedly.

My crank was replaced at 500 hrs.  Lycoming accually did the work and wrote it off as I major.  I suspect they replaced rings, reworked valves and wrote it up.

Good luck.  The good news is that Bravo's seem to be holding their value well and the major will make the airplane a lot more sellable.

 

JG

[johnggreen]

Overhauled.  They replaced just about everything.

[carqwik]

FWIW, I've owned my 98 Bravo since 2001.  Had about 160 hours on it when acquired.  Overall, I'd say that the maintenance required on my plane have not been anything specific to the Bravo but rather all of the general things that might be found on any airplane as it ages...

Things that have gone wrong...alternator failed in flight, 2 TIT probes failed (after 400 hours on each), 1 CHT probe, tach gauge replaced after erratic behavior, wing tanks leaked (patched by G Lehman at KTTD), replaced rubber gear donuts after 5 years, batteries only last 2 years max (AZ heat kills them), starter failed and replaced, attitude indicator O/H'd, vacuum pump replaced, landing lights replaced, ASI overhauled, EDM-700 display failed, and autopilot computer had cold solders (that was expensive to track down but the ultimate fix was cheap).  And some AD/SB's that were complied with such as the turbo heat shield, landing gear springy thing, overhead switch electrical, etc.

The biggest repair bill was the crankshaft R/R....big ouch in time and money.   Replaced the engine mounts at that time but exhaust and turbo were all fine.

Best advice is to have your plane annualled at a top Mooney SC....it costs more but is worth it.  Top Gun does my plane and generally no problems after each annual.

Ken

[gjkirsch]

Glad to join.  I am on my 4th Mooney and 2nd Bravo.  I have never had any real engine or airframe issues (well there was that fuel pump and crank AD) but the damn autopilot and the other electronics drive me nuts.  I have yet to find a mechanic I trust.  I used Wilmer for annuals before Bruce left there but am not sure of them any more.

[gjkirsch]

Glad to join.  I am on my 4th Mooney and 2nd Bravo.  I have never had any real engine or airframe issues (well there was that fuel pump and crank AD) but the damn autopilot and the other electronics drive me nuts.  I have yet to find a mechanic I trust.  I used Wilmer for annuals before Bruce left there but am not sure of them any more.

Gordon

N32CG

Grand Rapids, Mi

[donkaye]

 

I'll try to monitor this site more often.  If anyone has questions about the Bravo, more than likely I can answer them.  I have owned mine for 19 years, am on my second engine, and have 3,157 hours one it.  Of my 4,814 logged flights 2,362 for them have been in the Bravo for a total of 3,891 Bravo hours.  The difference between the two numbers is teaching hours in them.

I have read some of the post, but not all of them so I'll make a few comments that may have been covered before.  John was talking about flying at 2200/28.   Since the Key number for 75% power is 53 on the Bravo,  and any combination of 3" of MP or 300 RPM is 10% power, that means that he typically flies at 65% power.  At that low power setting and a much higher TIT (1650) than I like to run (1600) he runs approximately 13 gallon per hour.  He seems knowledgeable so maybe he knows whether all his instruments are correctly calibrated, but that still seems like a very low fuel flow for the speeds he is getting.  It's possible he has a "magic" Bravo.  Like most Bravo owners I run at 29-30" and 2400 RPM (75-78 percent power) and for the TIT that I feel comfortable with I get 19 gal/hour the first hour and 18 gal/hour thereafter.  George Braly couldn't explain why the difference. (Yes, I did take the APS course and couldn't agree more that it was one of the best aviation course I have taken in my flying career).   After the course I put on the GAMIs and successfully ran LOP for a few months until a mag was changed at Annual.  I never could get it to run LOP after that.  Others have reported having signifiant exhust repars after attempting the LOP experiment.  My advice, don't run LOP with this engine.

Regarding flying the pattern (after between 24,000-26,000 landings in over 5,000 hours of instruction):  I like 90 on downwind (gear down and approach flaps), when at the 3° slope point to your aim point reduce power to 15" nominally, turn base and simultaneously apply full flaps and hold the electric trim up (DO NOT LET THE NOSE DROP BELOW THE 3° APPROACH ANGLE). The addition of full flaps (added drag) and maintenance of the same approach angle will allow the airplane to slow to 80 on base.  Continue to slow to NO GREATER than 75 on final (no gusts and take off 5 knots from there for each 300 pounds that you are under gross weight.  I have landed my airplane at 65 knots with only me and 20 gallons on board).  Maintain the 3° slope to the flare at the aim point.  If you are exactly on the correct speed and you want to move the aim point closer to you, appropriately reduce power and simultaineously LOWER THE NOSE (there is never a time on final when speed is right on and power is reduced to move the aim point closer to you that the nose should not also be lowered to maintain the same speed).  When on final, elevator controls the airspeed and power controls the rate of descent, working in conjuction with each other of course.  The flare should begin at about 5 feet and the power should smoothly be withdrawn TO IDLE and the nose simultaneously raised to the landing attitude.  The final attitude of the nose should allow you to still see at least 2 center line stripes on the runway if the runway has them.

That's enough for now.  But I will say one more thing: having had my airplane for nearly 20 years now,  there is not another single engine piston airplane I would EVER want to own.

 

[johnggreen]

Dondaye,

Welcome! I am really glad to have someone on board who has flown a Bravo for such an extended period of time and hours. When I got Mooneyspace to set up the Bravo section, I recognized that we have an airplane with specific systems and issues. A great deal of benefit can be had by the sharing of our experience and maintenance solutions.

I will have to "argue" that I do not have a "magic Bravo". My fuel burns are exactly those set forth in the Lycoming Owner's Manual and my speeds, though quite envy envoking, are barely more than the performance peramaeters set forth by Mooney in the POH; i.e. +/- 2% of book. My Bravo's performance is indeed slightly more than 2% above book, about 2.5% it would seem and it does so with TKS and at gross. Rare, yes, but certainly not unheard of. I have owned, to date, 32 airplanes, some were faster than book, some were slower, for seemingly no reason. And no, my airspeed indicator is not getting undue credit. It does indicate 2 knots fast at cruise, but my speeds are GPS "four corner veified", as well as seven years of long cross county flying.

In fact, there are good reasons. As you know, no two airplanes come from the factory "exactly" alike. Sometimes, you get one that is simply straighter and better rigged. Perhaps you are correct. When it happens, it is something akin to magic; a veeery pleasant magic. Another pilot on the field bought a new Acclaim when they came out and there was absolutely no more than 5 knots difference in the speeds of the two airplanes at comparable power settings, though I think he had a "slow" Acclaim.

Again, welcome. You should be a wealth of information on Bravo maintenance and pilotage.

Jgreen

[carqwik]

I can echo most of Don Kaye's comments although I won't claim to have his knowledge or experience.  One thing I am glad to hear is that my power settings mimic his - and his fuel flows are identical to mine as well.  My engine burns 19 gph in the first hour, 18 gph in the second hour and a tiny bit less in the third hour.  I just thought my engine was weird and no mechanic I spoke with could ever explain why the fuel burn drops in the second hour of flight.  But I've accepted it and moved on...like trying to figure out why my #6 cylinder runs hotter than all the rest of them?  Don, any ideas?

[gjkirsch]

I thought the fuel flow dropped in the second hour because it cooled at altitude and became more dense. 

[thinwing]

with my very limited experience in my Bravo..about 200 hrs I am seeing fuel burns very similar to Don Kayes...guess I should have bought the magic gas turbulator availble from shopping network.The one all the petroleum companies tried to suppress

[johnggreen]

I suppose that I should just count myself lucky!!!  I can't imagine the fuel flows you guys are experiencing with your Bravos.  I have regularly flown from my home base, Grenada, MS, to Manassas, VA over the course of the last seven years.  I fly GNF-VXV-HEF which is 718 nautical without any vectors which I regularly get due to MOA's and arriving/departing traffic in the Washington area.  My no wind fuel burn will be 60-65 gallons depending on the vecors I receive.  On my return trips, especially this time of year, 30 knot headwinds are the norm.

In seven years I  have had to stop for fuel one time; after diverting north into Kentucky to avoid a squall line.  Even with these headwinds, I land with ample IFR reserves.  With the fuel burn some of you fellows are experiencing, I would rarely, if ever, make the westerly leg without a fuel stop.  I will again say that I fly my airplane ROP in accordance with Lycoming Operator's parameters and get the fuel burn Lycoming predicts.

I do a six month mini-annual on my airplane in addition to the regular annual.  At my last one, compressions were

[johnggreen]

I suppose that I should just count myself lucky!!! I can't imagine the fuel flows you guys are experiencing with your Bravos. I have regularly flown from my home base, Grenada, MS, to Manassas, VA over the course of the last seven years. I fly GNF-VXV-HEF which is 718 nautical without any vectors which I regularly get due to MOA's and arriving/departing traffic in the Washington area. My no wind fuel burn will be 60-65 gallons depending on the vecors I receive. On my return trips, especially this time of year, 30 knot headwinds are the norm.

In seven years I have had to stop for fuel one time; after diverting north into Kentucky to avoid a squall line. Even with these headwinds, I land with ample IFR reserves. With the fuel burn some of you fellows are experiencing, I would rarely, if ever, make the westerly leg without a fuel stop. I will again say that I fly my airplane ROP (1650TIT or peak whichever is lower) in accordance with Lycoming Operator's parameters and get the fuel burn Lycoming predicts. Like Donkaye, I have tried LOP and don't like it.

I do a six month mini-annual on my airplane in addition to the regular annual. At my last one, compressions were 78's & 79's. Not meaning to be disrespectful, but if I were burning 18 gph at 2400/30", I would buy a B-55 Baron tomorrow and I am seriously not kidding.

Jgreen

[johnggreen]

And don't ask me why the first of the two former posts was cut off.

Jgreen

[AndyFromCB]

Just gone done with a 2.7 hour flight and I'm a closer to John's fuel burns than the other posters. What are you guys leaning? 1550? 1500? The fuel burn at 34/2400 1650 should be around 21.5 at 17K for about 205knots, 32/2400 1650TIT, around 19.2 for about 195K and then mine just drop off by about 2 gallons per hour from there for each 2 inch manifold reduction and/or 200rpm, so about 17.5 at 30/2400, 15.5 at at 30/2200, 14 at 28/2200 and 12 at 24/2200. At or below 30/2400 my TIT peaks before 1650.

[donkaye]

 

I reviewed the Lycoming Manual.  As I said, John is running at a low power setting of 65%.  That amounts to 175.5 HP.  The book does say that at the lean limit he should be burning 80lb or 13.7 gal/hr.  At that rate he is getting 175 knots.  One of the reasons I bought my airplane is to go FAST.  So I run higher power settings, usually 78-81%, but TIT no greater than 1610.  At 81% power (219 HP)  the manual says that I should be burning 100 lb or 17.1 gal/hr.  That is best economy and unacceptable to me.  I want closer to best power, so I will gladly burn an extra gallon or two per hour.  I usually fly at between 15 and 18 thousand feet and at 17,000 true out at 205 knots; perfect for me.