Jump to content

Bravo for rent in Colorado


PilotX

Recommended Posts

Got a call from a friend, they are putting a G1000 M20M on line for rent. Sounds like the rate is $325ish. They are touting it as a 220kt airplane. I told him to fly it like that and they will be putting a new engine on it in short order. I guess that is what rental cars are for, best off-road vehicles ever made. Sent him my LOP numbers, I bet the experience requirements will keep most renters away but I can't imagine letting a flight school touch Miss Daisy. I just gave a hangar key to a friend but he flew it like a pro so I am not worried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, PilotX said:

Sounds like the rate is $325ish.

This also gives prospective Mooney owner/pilots a good gauge of M20M ownership costs. My fully encumbered hourly cost of operation based on a minimum of 120 hours per year is right at $350/hour. Add another 100hr/year and it drops to $250/hr, but of course adds an additional $25K to the annual encumbered operating costs.

I'm with @carusoam, the insurance policy must be interesting/pricey. Only named insureds permitted? 

Cheers,
Rick

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Junkman said:

This also gives prospective Mooney owner/pilots a good gauge of M20M ownership costs. My fully encumbered hourly cost of operation based on a minimum of 120 hours per year is right at $350/hour. Add another 100hr/year and it drops to $250/hr, but of course adds an additional $25K to the annual encumbered operating costs.

I'm with @carusoam, the insurance policy must be interesting/pricey. Only named insureds permitted? 

Cheers,
Rick

No idea. I think they are still working it out. The new owner is a low time pilot from what I heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Add another 100hr/year and it drops to $250/hr, but of course adds an additional $25K to the annual encumbered operating costs.


I think all-in hourly averages are not great to calculate once you've committed to the buy vs rent decision, because the number we care about is how much the next hour will cost. Based on those numbers, it looks like you're paying about $26k/year to keep the airplane airworthy, and then about $130/hr to fly around.

Which is why "cost per additional hour" is always the number *I* emphasize to my wife.

Edit to change what part i quoted to match my point better.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, rbp said:

it was marketed as a 200KTAS airplane at FL250. i don't remember the engine settings, but probably BTTW.

Mooney marketed it as a 220 knot airplane at FL250.

1698008293_ScreenShot2022-01-03at1_56_29PM.thumb.png.0ee52384969e873b49d5973de81323df.png

In Sept. 1996 Flying quoted Mooney specs in their article about the new Bravo (the Bravo engine had come out earlier that year).

1417127619_ScreenShot2022-01-03at1_59_50PM.thumb.png.a4a81287e5e5329b05927a2c1790fbdd.png

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
It’s in Centennial I don’t see it online yet.

I’m very interested in getting a chance to rent a Bravo for some real world seat time in prep for a new plane. I see foreflight lists 6 flying schools at Centennial. Any chance you know what rental company is thinking about adding the Bravo, then I can watch for the addition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Danb said:

I believe 318 is a GX my GX is 326, I believe one or two others before number 28-331 

Thanks! Could very well be that those were 2004 models. I knew that they made some DX's and thought that they made some some GX's in 2004, but didn't know how many of each that they made.

EDIT: You're right about 27-0318. It's actually considered a 2003 Mooney Bravo GX. It looks like 317 was not a GX, so 318 was probably the first GX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

Thanks! Could very well be that those were 2004 models. I knew that they made some DX's and thought that they made some some GX's in 2004, but didn't know how many of each that they made.

EDIT: You're right about 27-0318. It's actually considered a 2003 Mooney Bravo GX. It looks like 317 was not a GX, so 318 was probably the first GX.

Mine was marketed as a  2005 built in late 2004, I got ticked off when I bought it they represented it as a 2005, for what it’s worth I had Mooney enter in the log  it was a 2005 for what it’s worth. I think 318 was the test bed for the g1000, has the GFC 700 and other stuff, was then refurbished and renewed at the factory and sold as a 2004/2007 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have the Bravo on the rental line. I just requested a membership packet. Hopefully in a week or two I’ll have a pirep on how they are suggesting how to fly the Bravo. What I got from the ad it just says a top speed of 220knots. And is just an advertisement, not really and expectation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't want to be the insurance company that insures that airplane unless the annual insurance fee is the cost of the airplane.  An Acclaim was put on the line at Palo Alto a number of years ago.  3 prop strikes later the plane went into default and was repossessed.  Who would ever want it after all those prop strikes?  I brought it back from Kerrville before it went on the line.  It looked good then.  A couple of years later it looked like your typical rental plane---garbage.  The only beneficiaries may be the renters who don't give a cr*p about the plane, want to go fast, and will destroy the engine in short order.  On top of everything else, with the altitude in Denver, landings will be at least 10% faster than at sea level and may expedite the first prop strike.

It's a fools errand to put any long body Mooney on the line, expecting to make money while cutting their own flying expenses.  They are in for a real eye opening experience.  After 30 years' experience with the Bravo, there is so much more I could say, but it would likely just fall on deaf ears.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't want to be the insurance company that insures that airplane unless the annual insurance fee is the cost of the airplane.  An Acclaim was put on the line at Palo Alto a number of years ago.  3 prop strikes later the plane went into default and was repossessed.  Who would ever want it after all those prop strikes?  I brought it back from Kerrville before it went on the line.  It looked good then.  A couple of years later it looked like your typical rental plane---garbage.  The only beneficiaries may be the renters who don't give a cr*p about the plane, want to go fast, and will destroy the engine is short order.  On top of everything else, with the altitude in Denver, landings will be at least 10% faster than at sea level and may expedite the first prop strike.
It's a fools errand to put any long body Mooney on the line, expecting to make money while cutting their own flying expenses.  They are in for a real eye opening experience.  After 30 years' experience with the Bravo, there is so much more I could say, but it would likely just fall on deaf ears.

Very true, when I get down there I will make sure I promote your landing CD and instructions. Hopefully it might make the Bravo last a little longer for them :(


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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.