Why not buy a Bravo?

[Danb]

I’ve had my 2005 Bravo GX since 2006, absolutely love the plane, little thirsty. Have had no out of the ordinary repair issues, my useful load is 1040, have long range tanks which in my opinion is a must, the first upgrade after acquiring the plane. My biggest expense so far is new rubber disks in the mains and nose gear, my Bravo is quite smooth only time it ran rough was when I got a dirty injector. Being a lycoming fan made my choice of a bravo easy. Good luck finding one BTW the newer Bravos don’t have the tall panels.

[Danb]

5 minutes ago, Niko182 said:

Curious if surefly would benifit the bravo LOP wise like it did @aviatoreb Rocket. The bravo seems limited LOP wise at higher power due to TIT. And with Eriks Pirep of the surefly bringing the TIT down, do you think you'd be able to operate the bravo like the TAT setups, where you just go to a higher seting and just pull the mixture back to limit the power like on a TAT Bo setup? The bravo is on the approved list applicable to surefly.

My bravo runs lop without GAMIs fine, plane is smooth, I’ll be installing surefly over the winter. I have no issues with high CHT’s although I installed Gee Bees baffling and got about 15* reduction in CHTs in cruise. I don’t see the relationship of lower tit with the surefly, there website mentioned higher temps although Erik has had lower temps.

[Niko182]

6 minutes ago, Danb said:

My bravo runs lop without GAMIs fine, plane is smooth, I’ll be installing surefly over the winter. I have no issues with high CHT’s although I installed Gee Bees baffling and got about 15* reduction in CHTs in cruise. I don’t see the relationship of lower tit with the surefly, there website mentioned higher temps although Erik has had lower temps.

I think the surefly advanced timing brings the CHTs. Since the bravo doesn't have advanced timing approved, the CHT's should be slightly higher due to the hotter spark.

I think i remember Erik stating it bought his TIT down too. Just curious about it. I don't have experience with turbo planes so just trying to get an understanding.

[alextstone]

1 hour ago, Niko182 said:

Curious if surefly would benifit the bravo LOP wise like it did @aviatoreb Rocket. The bravo seems limited LOP wise at higher power due to TIT. And with Eriks Pirep of the surefly bringing the TIT down, do you think you'd be able to operate the bravo like the TAT setups, where you just go to a higher seting and just pull the mixture back to limit the power like on a TAT Bo setup? The bravo is on the approved list applicable to surefly.

@Niko182, I dropped my Bravo off for annual today...Surefly eMag is being installed in the left mag locationalong with a new right Slick mag and new ignition harnesses.  I'll report back in a couple of weeks regarding changes in temps / performance if any.

Alex

[philiplane]

The Bravo is the better choice if you are looking for engine longevity. A well set up Bravo is a joy to own. 

[daytonabch04]

I just completed my annual this week With no major discrepancies. It got new rubber shocks as the previous were from 2009. This is the 3rd annual in 3 years at 3 different MSCs and can say she’s been clean for a mid time plane. I fly mostly at 29/2300 and see speed above 170+regularly. She stays around 18 GPH unless I pull her back. I do have the urge and eye for an Acclaim speed though.  My Bravo is always for sale off the market. 

[slowflyin]

13 hours ago, Niko182 said:

Curious if surefly would benifit the bravo LOP wise like it did @aviatoreb Rocket. The bravo seems limited LOP wise at higher power due to TIT. And with Eriks Pirep of the surefly bringing the TIT down, do you think you'd be able to operate the bravo like the TAT setups, where you just go to a higher seting and just pull the mixture back to limit the power like on a TAT Bo setup? The bravo is on the approved list applicable to surefly.

Interesting idea- I'm not up to speed on the Surefly.  I'll be checking it out.

[Davidv]

Sure, Bravos are thirsty, but their mission of a personal airliner is somewhat unrivaled with the exception of the Acclaim and maybe the 252/Encore.  With the extended range tanks I get around 6.5 hrs of range at ROP in the flight levels.  At 29/24 I can do about 207-209 kts at 24k which translates into about 1300 miles of no wind range.  Besides the Acclaims, there are Mooneys that can fly further and on less fuel, but I don't believe at the same speed.  Maybe the Rocket? I don't know much about it but I would imagine with the tank size and useful load its mission is a little different.  I've done Boston to Ft. Lauderdale with a headwind.  Like any other plane, the amount of things that break are going to be very dependent on how it was treated and flown previously.  For me, I'm very aware that I have an $80K item (firewall forward) sitting in front of me and treat it accordingly...

Edited August 31, 2020 by Davidv

[PJClark]

1 hour ago, Davidv said:

Sure, Bravos are thirsty, but their mission of a personal airliner is somewhat unrivaled with the exception of the Acclaim and maybe the 252/Encore.  With the extended range tanks I get around 6.5 hrs of range at ROP in the flight levels.  At 29/24 I can do about 207-209 kts at 24k which translates into about 1300 miles of no wind range.  Besides the Acclaims, there are Mooneys that can fly further and on less fuel, but I don't believe at the same speed.  Maybe the Rocket? I don't know much about it but I would imagine with the tank size and useful load its mission is a little different.  I've done Boston to Ft. Lauderdale with a headwind.  Like any other plane, the amount of things that break are going to be very dependent on how it was treated and flown previously.  For me, I'm very aware that I have an $80K item (firewall forward) sitting in front of me and treat it accordingly...

My Rocket does 197 KTAS at 15-16k on 18 gph, about 65% power.  All cylinders 360 or less except #5 which hangs right around 380 or a little above.  I have long range tanks 103 gal, and UL about 920#. I kinda doubt I'll ever plan more than 3 hours on a hop.

Haven't been higher than 16k but it'll be faster.  I've run it harder a few times and I get another 5 knots for an added 1 gph although its hitting a drag limit around 164 KIAS at any altitude.

 

[irishpilot]

Sure, Bravos are thirsty, but their mission of a personal airliner is somewhat unrivaled with the exception of the Acclaim and maybe the 252/Encore.  With the extended range tanks I get around 6.5 hrs of range at ROP in the flight levels.  At 29/24 I can do about 207-209 kts at 24k which translates into about 1300 miles of no wind range.  Besides the Acclaims, there are Mooneys that can fly further and on less fuel, but I don't believe at the same speed.  Maybe the Rocket? I don't know much about it but I would imagine with the tank size and useful load its mission is a little different.  I've done Boston to Ft. Lauderdale with a headwind.  Like any other plane, the amount of things that break are going to be very dependent on how it was treated and flown previously.  For me, I'm very aware that I have an $80K item (firewall forward) sitting in front of me and treat it accordingly...

With full long range tanks what useful load do you have left? I think long range tanks are really only good for solo flying. At least with my Bravo's UL.

For fam flying, I can only take 60 gal with 4 ppl (2 adults, 2 kids) and bags. That puts me right at gross.



Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[gsxrpilot]

N252AD will be flying across the country tomorrow if anyone wants to see some real world numbers out of a 252. Follow on FlightAware. The fuel burn will be 9.5gph. Standard tanks.

[Danb]

4 hours ago, irishpilot said:

With full long range tanks what useful load do you have left? I think long range tanks are really only good for solo flying. At least with my Bravo's UL.

For fam flying, I can only take 60 gal with 4 ppl (2 adults, 2 kids) and bags. That puts me right at gross.



Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
 

Me and my wife not being big our UL is 1040, with full luggage and stuff and 120 gallons were 50 lbs or so under gross, this provides us with six hours of cruise in comfort, my first trip I had the standard tanks since most of our trips are 1200 miles  my first upgrade was LR tanks, time saved they most likely paid for themselves. Mooneys are great cross country machines.

[Davidv]

5 hours ago, irishpilot said:

With full long range tanks what useful load do you have left? I think long range tanks are really only good for solo flying. At least with my Bravo's UL.

For fam flying, I can only take 60 gal with 4 ppl (2 adults, 2 kids) and bags. That puts me right at gross.



Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
 

Yes, I fly solo a lot so it works well for me.

[smccray]

If your question is, "Is a Bravo a good airplane?" the answer is undoubtedly yes.  That's the the question you're getting here.  A Mooney is a pilot's airplane and not doubt it's a solid choice.

If you're really asking why not buy a bravo, it's because there are other airframes that offer similar capability.  If you want a turbo charged longbody Mooney, pick your price point.  If you want a turbo charged single, expand and look at a TR182, turbo SR22, or even a Columbia400.  Then expand a bit and look at a T210, TN Bonanza, perhaps even an early Piper Malibu.  Early bravos are still capable, but an increasing percentage of aircraft value is in the panel versus the airframe.  Being the fastest piston single has advantages, but the Bravo isn't the fastest, and it isn't the most efficient.  If you're going to buy a plane and upgrade it, you're going to have more in the plane than it's worth- by a lot.  If you want a speed demon, buy an early Columbia 400.  It's 10 years newer, already has a glass panel, and it's a fixed gear plane so you don't have the expense of a retract- and it's 10 years newer .

I'm not saying don't buy one, but you asked why not to buy one, so perhaps that's the answer.  But- if you want a Bravo- buy one!  I looked at them very hard and went a different direction.

[donkaye]

As of the 28th of August, I've had my M20M for 28 years.  I'm now on engine 3.  The  first one made TBO plus 300 hours and the second one would have had it not been for a shop incident that required an engine tear down.  So I went with a new one a few hundred hours short of TBO.  The 3rd one is the smoothest of them all.  On the first 2 the turbocharger on each needed to be overhauled mid time along with the wastegate and controllers.  Both engines needed exhaust stack work around mid time, too.  Cross country I use 75% power of 29"/2400 rpm.  65% power is 26"/2400 rpm. 

In my nearly 6,400 hours of teaching, I've taught in all models of Mooneys except the B and D so I know Mooneys.  From my experience, if they are slow to sell, in good condition, and priced low, then there are a lot of people out there who are flat out misinformed about the Bravo.  The Bravo is today's bargain.  True, it's a little slower than the Acclaim, but at ⅓ the cost there is no comparison as to value.  Also, I've had a lot of G1000 experience and personally don't like it much--even the NXi version.  After a few years the screens dim and can't be seen well off angle from the right seat even with the brightest setting.  I also don't like the old G1000 menu system and buttons compared to the new icons system and touch screens with knob option.  Also, if anything new comes out, the G1000 isn't very upgradeable.  The Acclaim did have the GFC 700, but the GFC 500 now outperforms it.

Contrast that with what I did and what the original poster was contemplating, upgrading the panel after he bought a bargain priced Bravo.  In my opinion that is the way to go.  I have an avionics panel that surpasses the newest Acclaim, and the only thing I would even consider having other than the Bravo would be a turbine airplane, and even then I don't think I could get the avionics package that I have on my airplane now and at a fraction of the price of that in the new turbine aircraft.

Flown properly after having gained experience, the Bravo is as easy to land as a Cessna 150.  It's performance with the 270 HP engine is only surpassed by the Acclaim and certainly not worth the increased price for the minimal increased performance.  I've gone out of Leadville at 13,500 DA in the afternoon at gross weight and was off the ground in a little over 1,300 feet. 

While I don't understand why the OP wants to go out of the Acclaim into the Bravo before purchase of a twin, it couldn't be a better decision from my point of view.

[carusoam]

Summary...

Reasons not to buy a Bravo...

1) You will save too much money over buying an Acclaim...

2) personally customizing the Instrument panel is too hard to think about...

3) The UL is so high, you might bring friends along...

4) From a mechanical point of view... you are looking to swap out a set of cylinders at the halfway point... but, with a Bravo, you might not get that decision made for you....
 

So... if you like a modern plane that has all the answers in place already... go New Mooney Acclaim!
 

Or if you like a Long Body that is turbocharged to operate in the FLs... at a bargain capital cost... and is preferred and operated by a great accountant....

Go Bravo!

PP thoughts only, not a plane sales guy...

Best regards,

-a-

[Jerry Pressley]

Is it easy to find a mechanic that enjoys working or overhauling that engine?

 

[alextstone]

Just now, Jerry Pressley said:

Is it easy to find a mechanic that enjoys working or overhauling that engine?

 

Yes.

[Jerry Pressley]

I couldn't 

[irishpilot]

@donkaye, I am jealous of your 28 years of airplane ownership. Very cool!

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[carusoam]

28yrs...

A great example of a LB being used as a forever-plane....   

 

Best regards,

-a-

[larryb]

You have an Acclaim. Even if you are going to get a twin, why trade down? Save a few $? There is a lot of risk in buying a “new to you” airplane. And then you plan to spend a lot of $$$ improving the Bravo you are going to buy? It seems like a lot of hassle and risk to me. I suggest skipping the piston twin and go straight for the TBM.

[Danb]

9 hours ago, donkaye said:

As of the 28th of August, I've had my M20M for 28 years.  I'm now on engine 3.  The  first one made TBO plus 300 hours and the second one would have had it not been for a shop incident that required an engine tear down.  So I went with a new one a few hundred hours short of TBO.  The 3rd one is the smoothest of them all.  On the first 2 the turbocharger on each needed to be overhauled mid time along with the wastegate and controllers.  Both engines needed exhaust stack work around mid time, too.  Cross country I use 75% power of 29"/2400 rpm.  65% power is 26"/2400 rpm. 

In my nearly 6,400 hours of teaching, I've taught in all models of Mooneys except the B and D so I know Mooneys.  From my experience, if they are slow to sell, in good condition, and priced low, then there are a lot of people out there who are flat out misinformed about the Bravo.  The Bravo is today's bargain.  True, it's a little slower than the Acclaim, but at ⅓ the cost there is no comparison as to value.  Also, I've had a lot of G1000 experience and personally don't like it much--even the NXi version.  After a few years the screens dim and can't be seen well off angle from the right seat even with the brightest setting.  I also don't like the old G1000 menu system and buttons compared to the new icons system and touch screens with knob option.  Also, if anything new comes out, the G1000 isn't very upgradeable.  The Acclaim did have the GFC 700, but the GFC 500 now outperforms it.

Contrast that with what I did and what the original poster was contemplating, upgrading the panel after he bought a bargain priced Bravo.  In my opinion that is the way to go.  I have an avionics panel that surpasses the newest Acclaim, and the only thing I would even consider having other than the Bravo would be a turbine airplane, and even then I don't think I could get the avionics package that I have on my airplane now and at a fraction of the price of that in the new turbine aircraft.

Flown properly after having gained experience, the Bravo is as easy to land as a Cessna 150.  It's performance with the 270 HP engine is only surpassed by the Acclaim and certainly not worth the increased price for the minimal increased performance.  I've gone out of Leadville at 13,500 DA in the afternoon at gross weight and was off the ground in a little over 1,300 feet. 

While I don't understand why the OP wants to go out of the Acclaim into the Bravo before purchase of a twin, it couldn't be a better decision from my point of view.

Don you generally explain the virtues of our Bravos quite well, as you know I have a g1000 since Mooney came out with that package, Mooney provided me with no knowledge of a new model coming out, the Acclaim, stated my plane was easily upgradable to WAAS and so on, it was rather unforgettable and unforgiving they provided no information regarding the fact the g1000 was part of the airframe being difficult or worse keeping up with current and prospective avionics, that’s close to being a used car salesmen moving a $300 auto, my dealer was Premiere in Ft Lauderdale.Also Don I haven’t had any issues with the screen dimming, it is as clear as when new, lucky I guess. More importantly than finding the type plane one wants one should learn as much as possible about the seller or agent. My last two Mooney’s were basically new or less than 50 hours when purchased so I didn’t follow my advice, I’m bad. If I had known about the Acclaim coming out, the stringent upgrades available to the g1000 and so on I would have been able to make a more informed decision, most likely it would have been the same but who knows. I got lucky and acquired a good Mooney with minimal issues other than the constraints mentioned. Good luck getting that Bravo, a long bodied Mooney with a lycoming on board, the best of the best.

[donkaye]

3 hours ago, Danb said:

Don you generally explain the virtues of our Bravos quite well, as you know I have a g1000 since Mooney came out with that package, Mooney provided me with no knowledge of a new model coming out, the Acclaim, stated my plane was easily upgradable to WAAS and so on, it was rather unforgettable and unforgiving they provided no information regarding the fact the g1000 was part of the airframe being difficult or worse keeping up with current and prospective avionics, that’s close to being a used car salesmen moving a $300 auto, my dealer was Premiere in Ft Lauderdale.Also Don I haven’t had any issues with the screen dimming, it is as clear as when new, lucky I guess. More importantly than finding the type plane one wants one should learn as much as possible about the seller or agent. My last two Mooney’s were basically new or less than 50 hours when purchased so I didn’t follow my advice, I’m bad. If I had known about the Acclaim coming out, the stringent upgrades available to the g1000 and so on I would have been able to make a more informed decision, most likely it would have been the same but who knows. I got lucky and acquired a good Mooney with minimal issues other than the constraints mentioned. Good luck getting that Bravo, a long bodied Mooney with a lycoming on board, the best of the best.

When I said "dims",  maybe better words would be "washed out".  I've seen it in a number of G1000 airplanes.  Its like the iPad in the sun.  Possibly the G500s will do the same over time.  I've helped ferry several airplane purchased from Premier and they seemed like a good company at the time.  Salesman are salesman.  Richard Simile worked for them for may years.  Giving them the benefit of the doubt, maybe they didn't know the Acclaim was about to come out.  It was (is) a hard nut to swallow financially when it comes to upgrading the older G1000s to WAAS.

[mike_elliott]

Don, I am curious why you say a GFC500 outperforms a GFC700. I dont have the time you have in a GFC500 by now, as my time is now only about 10 hrs in the GFC500, but I am pretty confident I have more time with the GFC700  and G1000NXI than you and would like to know why you feel the GFC500 outperforms it. The YD is cool for sure but possibly not worth the trade off for the less stout servos. Worth the option yes, 

Ray and I have flown together in his plane and I have had a fantastic late model Bravo with all the "updates" (brakes, panel, etc) for over 5 years. Rays Ultra is a fantastic plane. Faster, A/C, better efficiency, modern electronics, better AP and the list goes on.

Dont get me wrong, When I sold the Bravo it was by far the best example of a Bravo for the $ at the time, I made sure of that. It was not a G1000NXI with a GFC700 AP Ultra Acclaim, however. 

You said...

The Acclaim did have the GFC 700, but the GFC 500 now outperforms it.

"