201 to Bravo?

[Tx_Aggie]

I’ve had an M20J for almost 2 years now. It’s either met or exceeded my expectations from both performance and operating economics. It’s taken my family of 3 as for north as Denver and as Far East as Sarasota - multiple trips to Florida from Texas actually. It’s been very economical (In terms of Amu’s) to own and nothing short of a pleasure every trip. 
 

Having said all this, I do wonder what a move up to a longbody would look like. Going faster is always a pleasant idea - even with the increased fuel burn and several extra engine components to maintain. And having a little extra cabin room is something that Id like too. The market still seems to hold higher premium values for ovations over bravos. No one in our family would want to be in oxygen altitudes, but it appears ovations still hold a $75-100k acquisition premium over likekind bravos. That’s a lot of Florida trips to make before an ovation purchase would make sense!

 

The J does everything we ask it to do quite well. So I’d like to ask those who have decided to trade up from a 201 to a bravo what your experience and  pros and cons have been - performance, operating economics, etc.  TIA. 

[PilotX]

Sounds like a neat discussion. I went straight from a R182 to a Bravo. Love it. Just started flying jets so I am not flying as much as I want to but I will after this trip.

[Boilermonkey]

I moved from a C182 ->M20C -> M20M Bravo and another dozen other types rented over the years.  I love our Bravo, it is very capable and fun to fly.  The only two drawbacks are:  1) The W&B can be tricky when wanting to carry 3-4 people more than 2 hours.   2)  When you get to the engine OH time it is much more expensive than a M20J...the TIO-540-AF1B is a complex turbo charged engine.  Once you add up the OH/reman, install, prop OH, etc. you are looking at $100K when that time comes.   

I'm able to make that work with my co-owner, but it something to consider.

[FoxMike]

I have owned a Bravo since 2003 (actually it owns me).  Great airplane in weather and over the Rockies.  Downside is cost of operation, hard to flare when CG is forward, gas mileage is poor,  you need to wear O2 to get efficiency.  When I chase down a hamburger 100-150 miles away the Bravo is overkill but dealing with messy weather on a 800 mile trip the airplane is just right.  My Bravo is FIKI.  It really depends on your needs.  I have hours in a 201 and think it is about the best of the Mooney fleet.  Shopping for a Bravo is difficult because many airframes do not get the continuing maintenance they require.  You might end up doing 2 or 3 prebuys to find a good one.  The Bravo prices are lower because the airplane costs much more to operate and  it is not as much fun to fly as the others in the Mooney fleet.

[milotron]

2 hours ago, FoxMike said:

 ...and  it is not as much fun to fly as the others in the Mooney fleet.

Hi FoxMike,

 

I am curious as to why the Bravo is not as much fun to fly. Within the short/mid/long body continuum, do they are all not flight pretty similar?

[Tx_Aggie]

3 hours ago, FoxMike said:

I have owned a Bravo since 2003 (actually it owns me).  Great airplane in weather and over the Rockies.  Downside is cost of operation, hard to flare when CG is forward, gas mileage is poor,  you need to wear O2 to get efficiency.  When I chase down a hamburger 100-150 miles away the Bravo is overkill but dealing with messy weather on a 800 mile trip the airplane is just right.  My Bravo is FIKI.  It really depends on your needs.  I have hours in a 201 and think it is about the best of the Mooney fleet.  Shopping for a Bravo is difficult because many airframes do not get the continuing maintenance they require.  You might end up doing 2 or 3 prebuys to find a good one.  The Bravo prices are lower because the airplane costs much more to operate and  it is not as much fun to fly as the others in the Mooney fleet.

Really appreciate the candid response!

[Boilermonkey]

I've found Mooney's more fun to fly than other types I have flown.  The M20C was slightly more fun than the Bravo in terms of responsiveness.  The controls were very light and a small deflection in the controls gave a quick response.   The Bravo is fun to fly, but heavier on the controls and requires better airmanship to approach/land properly.  I'd still take it over any Piper, Cessna, or Beech that I've flown.   I'd also take the Bravo over any other aircraft I've flown to confidently fly cross country.  O2, TKS, Turbo, leg room, etc. make it a reliable aircraft for getting up/around weather, going fast, etc.  (for GA).

 

[FoxMike]

To my mind the Bravo takes more effort to maneuver because it is heavier.  The extra weight requires more airspeed attention to approaches and landings.  The turboed Lycoming engine puts a lot of weight foreword so trying get the speed right in the flare is a challenge. Being either too fast or too slow can cause serious problems. The donuts on the gear are not sufficient  for the airframe weight so even taxiing around takes more effort and the passengers notice the rough ride.  Overall the Bravo handles acceptably but the other Mooney models are better. Donuts last 5 to 6 years at best.  The Bravo does best in weather.  It really gives the pilot confidence when flying in wet, bumpy clouds.  I have put 2000 hours on my airplane in 19 years of ownership.  Every airplane has plusses and minuses.  

[carusoam]

M20C to Ovation…

Done for a few reasons…

Modernity, Capability, Performance, and interior space…

 

Only challenge… cost.

The upgrades are worth the cost…. When the AMUs allow.

 

Make sure your finance administrator is on board!

-a-

[Tx_Aggie]

4 minutes ago, carusoam said:

M20C to Ovation…

Done for a few reasons…

Modernity, Capability, Performance, and interior space…

 

Only challenge… cost.

The upgrades are worth the cost…. When the AMUs allow.

 

Make sure your finance administrator is on board!

-a-

Finance administrator being on board - now there’s some wisdom! Totally agree!

[rbp]

22 hours ago, milotron said:

Hi FoxMike,

 

I am curious as to why the Bravo is not as much fun to fly. Within the short/mid/long body continuum, do they are all not flight pretty similar?

i love flying mine! 

[carusoam]

Turbos allow for very fast sailing in the FLs… often!

Can’t get that from a similar NA engine…

 

Turbos also allow for very strong climbs to Cruise altitudes…

 

Of course… having all this extra fun, comes with a few extra costs…. Power vs responsibility… - Peter Parker

-a-

[Danb]

14 hours ago, FoxMike said:

To my mind the Bravo takes more effort to maneuver because it is heavier.  The extra weight requires more airspeed attention to approaches and landings.  The turboed Lycoming engine puts a lot of weight foreword so trying get the speed right in the flare is a challenge. Being either too fast or too slow can cause serious problems. The donuts on the gear are not sufficient  for the airframe weight so even taxiing around takes more effort and the passengers notice the rough ride.  Overall the Bravo handles acceptably but the other Mooney models are better. Donuts last 5 to 6 years at best.  The Bravo does best in weather.  It really gives the pilot confidence when flying in wet, bumpy clouds.  I have put 2000 hours on my airplane in 19 years of ownership.  Every airplane has plusses and minuses.  

I’ve had two J models for about 20 years and 15 years in my Bravo, I see no difference in fun or flight characteristics between them except the Bravo is different in landing, or it’s me getting older. Did change from my J’s which I loved to the Bravo due to taking many more long flights, my wife like going faster albeit more expensive 

[Fritz1]

I have had my Bravo for 4 years and had a G-model before that. The Bravo shines when it is about out climbing icing and on legs over 500 NM especially with tailwind cruising between 16,000 ft and FL210 somewhere between 180 and 190 KT TAS burning about 18.5 gph. Overall it is a "point design", airframe squeezed into a corner and to the limit. With full tanks the FIKI Bravo it is a two person airplane at best, back seats are out in mine, saves about 30lb. However if mountains are in your way and icing is in the forecast the Acclaim is the only piston that will match or exceed the Bravo in performance and utility. The Bravo requires overall 1-2 hours of maintenance per year for every hour the prop turns presuming 100-150h/yr not counting any upgrades. Brian Kendrick in TX did the pre purchase on mine and we evaluated a total of 10 Bravos in various depth. Brian does every 2nd annual and otherwise supports the aircraft remotely. Having somebody on call that knows every minute detail of the aircraft in addition to local talent I consider crucial for safe, reliable and enjoyable operations.

[donkaye]

I've been enjoying the posts of CitationMax on YouTube.  His family started out with a Cirrus and quickly moved to a Citation M2.  After a short time they found the range of the M2 unsatisfactory and stepped up to the Citation CJ3+ to accomplish their required missions.  The same can be said for the Mooneys.  Each satisfies their specific goals.  Once you have moved to the turbocharged models you wouldn't want to move back.  In my opinion it's absolutely ridiculous that the Bravos should be priced the way they are.  That does, however, provide opportunities for the smart buyers.  For a well trained pilot the Bravo is no more difficult to fly that a J.  It's just different.  If you're flying like a pro, you shouldn't even notice control pressure differences (there are some) because you will be flying with control pressures and not just jerking the airplane around like an amateur.  I can't tell you how many times I've had to teach otherwise good pilots how to fly with "grace", and not like an aerobatic pilot.

I've had my Bravo for 29 ½ years.  A turbine would not be unreasonable.  I choose to stay with my Mooney because it satisfies my needs and wants.  That says it all.

 

[rbp]

1 hour ago, donkaye said:

In my opinion it's absolutely ridiculous that the Bravos should be priced the way they are.  That does, however, provide opportunities for the smart buyers.  For a well trained pilot the Bravo is no more difficult to fly that a J.  It's just different

yes, there's a lot of Fear Uncertainty and Doubt when it comes to this engine, which seem to fall into 3 categories:

1. its too hard to manage the temps. yes, the temps need to be carefully managed, and there's that pesky TIT to watch carefully

2. fuel burn is too high. the real question is what is the no-wind mile per gallon? its about 9.5nm/gal in my plane cruising at 30/24 at 180-220 true, depending on altitude. I plan a generous 26 gph for the first half-hour (500fpm @120kias = 15,000ft climb) and 19gph in cruise. with 19 gals reserve, 89-13-19 = 57 gals is almost 4 hours, yielding a range of 60nm in the climb and 800nm in cruise, for 860nm in 4.5 hrs. I'd like to see a straight up comparison to a J or an Ovation -- how much fuel would they burn for 860nm, and how long would it take?

3. engine replacement cost. yep. see #1

[donkaye]

48 minutes ago, rbp said:

yes, there's a lot of Fear Uncertainty and Doubt when it comes to this engine, which seem to fall into 3 categories:

1. its too hard to manage the temps. yes, the temps need to be carefully managed, and there's that pesky TIT to watch carefully

2. fuel burn is too high. the real question is what is the no-wind mile per gallon? its about 9.5nm/gal in my plane cruising at 30/24 at 180-220 true, depending on altitude. I plan a generous 26 gph for the first half-hour (500fpm @120kias = 15,000ft climb) and 19gph in cruise. with 19 gals reserve, 89-13-19 = 57 gals is almost 4 hours, yielding a range of 60nm in the climb and 800nm in cruise, for 860nm in 4.5 hrs. I'd like to see a straight up comparison to a J or an Ovation -- how much fuel would they burn for 860nm, and how long would it take?

3. engine replacement cost. yep. see #1

If you choose any turbocharged engine, an overhaul is going to cost more.  While the Acclaim is about 20 knots faster than the Bravo, paying nearly twice the cost of the Bravo for 20 knots doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me--and that engine has two turbochargers to maintain.

I'm on my 3rd engine so I know it quite well.  I have the EI MVP-50.  I have questioned EI extensively about the accuracy of their instrumentation.  They say it is extremely accurate.  Based on the MVP-50 and 29"/2400 power setting, cruise burn is 18 gal/hour in cruse the first hour and 17.5 gal/hour thereafter for a TIT of no great than 1600°F.  My CHTs are no greater than 370° on the hottest cylinder.

[1Germaican]

@donkaye did all of your engines make it to TBO?  Did you operate them all the same?  What lessons did you learn from operating experience?  Curious minds want to know,

Thank you,

[rbp]

On 1/6/2022 at 9:36 PM, donkaye said:

Based on the MVP-50 and 29"/2400 power setting, cruise burn is 18 gal/hour in cruse the first hour and 17.5 gal/hour thereafter for a TIT of no great than 1600°F.  My CHTs are no greater than 370° on the hottest cylinder

interesting -- i run 30/24 and 1550, and burn 18.5

[donkaye]

56 minutes ago, rbp said:

interesting -- i run 30/24 and 1550, and burn 18.5

For that setting, that sounds about right, but you're running it at 78% power, which is a little on the high side.  I might do that to get out of turbulence faster or when flying in a large headwind, but for the most part cruise should be at 29"/2400.

[rbp]

19 minutes ago, donkaye said:

For that setting, that sounds about right, but you're running it at 78% power, which is a little on the high side.  I might do that to get out of turbulence faster or when flying in a large headwind, but for the most part cruise should be at 29"/2400.

high side of what? 

[donkaye]

9 hours ago, 1Germaican said:

@donkaye did all of your engines make it to TBO?  Did you operate them all the same?  What lessons did you learn from operating experience?  Curious minds want to know,

Thank you,

The first engine did not have an engine monitor, yet still made it to 2,295 hours at which time I got a reman.  I felt comfortable taking it over TBO because it got the Bravo upgrade at 1,300 hours.  The second engine would have made it to TBO had there not been a shop incident at Annual where the gear was accidentally attempted to be retracted without the plane being on jacks.  The  prop was bent requiring a new prop and engine teardown.  That engine had 1,600 hours on it.  Since a new engine would have been in the cards in 400 hours (or about 3 years), I chose to save the money of the R&R, get credit for the teardown and  loss of use money, and get a new reman early.  As much as I was unhappy with what happened, the upside was that I got a new prop ($18,000) and a new reman ($85,500 installed) and saved $76,000.  The shop's insurance company was cooperative and totally responsive to my requests.  The 3rd engine now has 324 hours on it and is the smoothest and coolest running of all of them.

I would just about be up for a new engine now when wait times appear to be nearing 6 months.  So in hindsight things really worked out for the best.

[donkaye]

16 minutes ago, rbp said:

high side of what? 

75% power.  For engine longevity it is recommended that cruise power be no greater than 75%.

[rbp]

where did you determine 75% = 29/2400?

[donkaye]

2 minutes ago, rbp said:

where did you determine 75% = 29/2400?

The red Lycoming Engine manual that should have come with your plane.  As you know, the POH doesn't show settings as a percentage of power.  In fact, if you used some of it's settings, the engine wouldn't make TBO.