Looking for honest feedback before purchase

[kgbpost]

I went to SAT to look at a 252 and ended up buying a Bravo. I love it. So far, knock on wood, it's only been to the shop once to fix a fuel tank leak on the top of the RT tank...make sure you make them fill it to the top and sit overnight before checking for leaks. Also if the gear pucks are more than a year or two old they will need replacement (mains for sure).

I really like the Bravo, you do give up some usefull load to carry the extra fuel you'll need to feed that big lycoming, but let's face it...the Bravo is a Hotrod.

I went into my deal with my eyes wide open, and took note of the info I could glean from this site and it has served me well. I knew some background on it before I ever laid eyes on it. If there are some grumblings about the outfit selling that particular bird, which there seems to be, I'd be very cautious. If there is any pressure at all to let them do the pre-buy inhouse i wouldnt walk away... I'd run. It's obvious from the photos that it has a pretty new paint job and a new interior, but that tells me nothing. Zephr is a top notch engine shop, so that's a good sign, assuming it hasn't been submerged or abused since.

I would go visit AAA in SAT and let David take you flying in one of theirs. Even if they don't have one to fit your needs they are very knowledgeable and I think you would enjoy the experience. If you did buy one from them there are numerous MSCs in that area...you could simply fly home and they will ferry it for you to Maxwell or Dugosh or wherever you want the prebuy done.

Anyway, best of luck. The Bravo is a sweet sweet bird. Fly safe. Brian

 

 

 

[Skywarrior]

I should add some details to my earlier post.

When shopping for a plane, my wife said she didn't want to fly in a plane that was going to be real bumpy. Translated, that meant a bird that could get up to cool air quickly. Here in the south, that means a plane that can climb to 8,000+ quickly.

Well, that meant a turbo or a big engine, like in a Missile.

If you're east of the Mississippi, and don't mind bumpy updrafts, I'd bet you could get along just fine with a normally aspirated bird.

As many other posters have said, it's all about what your situation is.

[GeorgePerry]

Quote: jmcanally

Thanks to everyone for responding.  The plane that I am looking at is in fact the link that George posted in the 3rd thread.  The seller is Mooney Mart and they are saying the plane has been flown around 200 hours over the last 2 1/2 years.  Of course I know they are the seller, but they are willing to do the annual and pay for everything the annual turns up.  They are that confident of the airplane and the shape it's in.  I still would send it out to for a thorough prebuy as well.

[AndyFromCB]

$30,000 is possible, especially the first year, remember, you're running a $500,000 aircraft, just buy them cheap enough and have that in your budget. Think about how much a house costs to maintain (most people don't, I've kept a spreadsheet since day I bought mine) and there are years where spending 10% of the price is not unheard off. Same thing with aircraft. My Bravo experience so far, BTW, I bought it without a prepurchase/annual other than reviewing the logs and spending a few hours talking to the mechanics who maintaned over the years and taking off all inspection panels, has been as expected. I bought for about 25% under vRef and I'm sure by the end of this month I'll have a perfect (by perfect, I mean a POS, but an airworthy POS) aircraft at about 10% under vRef, $20,000 or so later. I'd rather buy a "junker" than a "perfect" one. Crap will break on both soon enough but at least it's expected and priced in on a "junker". At least I end up with a bunch of new parts ;-)

Not trying to scare you, just be realistic. There is only one type of AIRWORTHY aircraft out there for sale, divided into two separate categories:

-pieces of crap, priced well

-pieces of crap, way overpriced, because the owner has an emotional attachment to his airplane/mechanic/sunday morning airport doughnut crew.

And then occasionally you will come across some real, unairworthy junk...

[FlyDave]

Quote: johnggreen

Don't know about you fellows, but this is a pretty good way to fill a rainy Sunday morning.  I was going to go shoot approaches, but----------------

Got to comment on the following quotes though.

For my money, The Ovation and the Bravo are the only two airplanes made by Mooney that I would own.  Mooneys are tight, uncomfortable, quirky in their handling, have fragile landing gears, some really dime ass components (do-nut suspension), and leaking wings to name a few traits.  Not to mention their fatal accident rate is eye opening (Skylane vs J model in one 10 year period was, I believe 137%).    In short, they are mostly purchased because of price by people who can't afford better.

 

The Bravo is a very capable airplane.  Though still a Mooney, it has some semblance of room, turbocharging, dual everything, and will carry TKS without completely compromising climb and cruise performance.  Only the unknowing think that turbocharging is for speed; it's more for capability.  Any speed gain at the end of the year is negligible.

As for the quotes below, I have always noticed that we all, including me, think anything we can't afford is overpriced.  As for the Bravo market being dead, that simply is not supported by the facts.  The best, cleanest Bravos move well considering that we are in one of the worst aircraft "recessions" in history.  VREF, to which I subscribe, currently rates the Bravo market a B which is the same as the Skylane and the A-36, and one of the highest sale ratings of any airplane in today's market.  Put an airplane "with issues" on this market and it will never sell, even at a substantial discount.

OK, that's enough and I've irritated you fellows enough for today.

Jgreen

 

[AndyFromCB]

I know, I wish he went to shoot approaches too, except everything John has said about Mooneys is right ;-) Other than selling an airplane with issues, because I might buy it, but you better price it right. I always feel really good about my airplane after a good wings off annual as long as I got to supervise the reinstallation of said wings.

It it floats, flies or fornicates, rent, it's always cheaper in the long run. This is of course, from a mostly married guy, with two airplanes and a collection of boats ;-) Always doing my best to keep the economy going.

And to all you peeps obsessed with your MSC, I worked with the best one, see my older posts, to figure out a charging/alternator/voltage regulator issue. It finally took my taking a full weekend off from my life, understanding how things work and explaining what needed fixing to a few A&P, IAs. The profession most of the time does not attract the smartests individuals as neither does the post service because there is no real money in it and the smart ones are artists who are a pain in the ass to deal with.

Take everything I say from my perspective though, I don't like airplanes and I don't especially like flying, I do it because it gets me from A to B "fairly" cheaply and quickly. I have no emotional attachment to aviating like most of guys.

[fantom]

"OK, that's enough and I've irritated you fellows enough for today. Jgreen"

Bugging people with your opinions isn't an issue for me, but your enjoyment of doing it is probably an issue for lots of folks.

I've been actively involved in the Florida Mooney community for 20 years, and after serveral personal experiences, and 100's of discussions with other people, you are only the second person I've ever heard say anything good about that self professed FL Mooney guru. Strong personalities are one thing....basic ethics are another. But he does give lots of business to your profession.

Oh, and the other guy who had something nice to say, finally got screwed to the tune of about $4,000 he couldn't afford.

YMMV.

[Tony Armour]

Quote: fantom

"OK, that's enough and I've irritated you fellows enough for today. Jgreen"

Bugging people with your opinions isn't an issue for me, but your enjoyment of doing it is probably an issue for lots of folks.

I've been actively involved in the Florida Mooney community for 20 years, and after serveral personal experiences, and 100's of discussions with other people, you are only the second person I've ever heard say anything good about that self professed FL Mooney guru. Strong personalities are one thing....basic ethics are another. But he does give lots of business to your profession.

Oh, and the other guy who had something nice to say, finally got screwed to the tune of about $4,000 he couldn't afford.

YMMV.

[jetdriven]

Hey lay off John.  He is here to provide help, not just shill for shops.

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: johnggreen

Someone suggested one of the other turbo Mooneys.  Don't mean to offend, but I would go back to the Skylane first and fight head winds.  The shorter bodied models are just simply too small to be practical.  Boy, I know that's going to draw some ire.  Sorry fellows, that's my opinion. 

I ain't offended but really question that logic/reasoning.  I'm not sure why your Bravo is any more comfortable than my 252 when flying 1000 miles from Texas to central Florida.

to the OP: You will likely spend more on Bravo maintenance than any other Mooney.  I almost ended up with a sweet Bravo (someone else on this board bought it), but am glad I didn't.  That's not knocking the bird. If I could be certain I could afford to own and fly one, I would.

I like 190 knots, but not on 17-18 gph or whatever it takes.

I'm happy with my 252 (Encore Conversion here in a couple days) that can get within 10% on the Bravo's cruise figures no problem...with a lot less fuel burn.  Oh and the 1050+ lb useful load is great.

[Parker_Woodruff]

PS: Zephyr does great engine work, so you should be in good shape there if the plane hasn't sat for long periods of time and is flown regularly.

[Tony Armour]

Ok, back to TLS/Bravos !!

Last week I sit in three Bonanas. Two were twins (33 and 36 bodies) and one was a 33 single. I'm sitting there and say to myself. "I'm a lucky guy to be flying my TLS"

For you Jim, Not getting into specifics I'll briefly talk about my seven year 201 ownership and my six year TLS ownership:

Basically the costs have been the same and IMO inline with any other retractable, performance single. A few of the higher costs for me have been: a turbocharger $1200, new mags @ 1700 hours $1,600,  nothing in the over all picture. I am expecting a much larger engine OH $$$ compared to a four cylinder normally aspirated.

Annuals have been pretty much the same as the 201, basic inspection for around $1,600. Throw in an ELT battery, a tire every few years. Did the donuts one year. Really no surprises. Whoever was quoting you those enormous figures must be smoking crack.

Right or wrong If buying now, I personally would try to buy the newest airframe with lower hours that I could afford.

A pilot on my home field asked me about Mooney's a few years back. I asked him his mission, there was some mountian flying, mainly him and his wife.......I told him  the best all around airplane might be a properly equipped K model. I didn't push him toward a TLS/Bravo only because of fuel burn. He bought a 231 and has been very happy since.

For me personally, the fuel burn over a 201 or K model is well worth it. Honestly, the only way you could tempt me away from my TLS (cost considered) is a newer model Bravo with a glass cockpit (and I'm not sure that would be a good move) In fact, speaking of fuel burn, when looking to upgrade from the 201 and figuring in time saved (not using fuel) it wasn't as bad as it looked on paper. There are times when flying short hops (one hour) that I try to avoid looking at the fuel flow But you know what, even on short flights I'm still flying safer and faster than my 201. 3,000' to 4,000' higher, out of traffic with back-ups.

If I seem biased, I am I believe for good reasons though.

I did talk to a gentleman last week at a fly-in breakfast that is going to be putting his 94 TLS on the market. He just had a third child and also has a Bonana. He "might" have even bought the TLS new, if not he has owned it for a long time. If you want his contact # let me know.

 

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: johnggreen

In short, they are mostly purchased because of price by people who can't afford better. 

Really?  Decent models seem to command a premium over anything else of similar capability/design/mission.  I have an operating budget with certain limitations and want to fly long distances on that budget.

Go price the following:

Piper Arrow vs. M20J

Piper Turbo Arrow vs. M20K

 

On the models where Mooneys are cheaper than whatever brand you'd like to compare, I can assure you that we have the better plane, from a pilot's perspective.  Case: SR-22 vs. Mooney M20R, S, TN.  Go talk about annuals with a Cirrus SR-22 owner who flies 200 hours a year.  That Bravo might look cheap to operate.

[jetdriven]

Busch indicated the annuals on a Cirrus are 50% higher than  "legacy plane' meaning A36.  Thats was around 10-15K a year.   I'll take the cheap 201.

[BrianNC]

jmcanally,

I see your only 3 posts on the forum were on this thread. Did you buy the plane or ever get another one?