The Bravo: One Capable Airplane

[johnggreen]

To fellow Bravo owners:

I have sinned, uh may be sinning.  Yes, I have been seriously considering replacing the Bravo with something that provides more room and useful load.  My quest has been truly eye opening, and I thought I would share it with you.

My trips are long.  Usually, at least, 400nm, usually closer to 700nm.  Carrying fuel for that non-stop doesn't leave any capacity beyond my wife and our bags.  Sitting in a Bravo, or any airplane for four plus hours without the ability to stretch (stand up!) can be trying.  So, I started looking at twins.  Without going into any detail about which twins, let me get to the point.

The Bravo has dual everything; batteries, alternators, vacuum pumps, AI's, 430's, and WSI, KFC 225, MX20, TKS.  It will cruise at 15,000' burning 14 gallons and give 183 ktas.  If need be, I can burn more fuel and go faster, but I rarely do. I have found an economy setting that will give me 175 knots at 13 gallons and take me from Durango, CO, to Grenada, MS with no wind and land me with full IFR reserves!  That's with standard tanks.  The Lycoming is glass smooth and so quiet I hardly even need the Bose.  I can handle reasonable ice LEGALLY, climb over a lot of weather, and grab a convenient headwind.  Turbulence, well, it's turbulent, but I handle it knowing that I've only heard of one instance of a Mooney coming apart before it hit the ground.  IFR to minimums are a piece of cake.  My annuals run $3,000, but i do a half annual at six months and lots of preventive maintenance and replacement of wear items well before Mean Time Between Failure.   So, discounting prop and engine overhaul reserves, I spend about $9,000 a year keeping it in tip top shape.  On top of that, it is a joy to fly even if it plays tricks on landing just to make me prove to it that I'm a competent pilot.  Baby don't like no ham fisted pilot.

Now, go into the market and try to replace what the Bravo will do with a twin, with anything.  First of all, you will be astounded as to how few airplanes will give you the same capability and performance and then, knocked out by what it will cost to add the capacity to carry two more people and 500 pounds.

I heard a story once about an old farmer that wanted to sell his mule.  He drew up and ad telling all about the mule, went down to the country store and nailed it on the wall.  Before walking off, he read over what he had written just one more time then tore the paper down, ripped it up and started walking away.  A friend was watching him and asked, "Ain't you gonna sell that mule?"   "Nope", replied the farmer, " been looking for a mule like that all my life."

As for me, sooner or later, my needs may force me into spending the money, the considerable money, it will take to replace the Bravo.  But the search has caused me to think of something I read once about how Mother Nature didn't design man to appreciate, she desingned him to want.

I just thought some of you might like to read and contemplate this without the bother of shopping for a replacement to one hell of an airplane.  Then go to the hangar and kiss Baby right on the tip of the spinner.

Jgreen

 

[thinwing]

well john coming from someone who replaced a Baron for a Bravo,I couldnt agree with you more...and even in cabin class equipment...only the passengers can standup and stretch inflight,not the pilots...ps we just did 3000 n in the Bravo...anti ice was a blessing...kp couch

[TLSDriver]

johnggreen,

You wrote,"I have found an economy setting that will give me 175 knots at 13 gallons."  

I have a 98 Bravo and at 15,000 I am at 185-190kts but fuel is 20-22gph.  I would gladly trade 10-15tks for 7gph.  

How are you getting that performance?

Thanks

David

 

[Piloto]

John you have a valid dilema but have to look at the realities. A good friend of mine used to have an M20K and he was happy with it except for the same reasons you mention. He sold it and bought an Aerostar 601P (pressurized). Although the 601P was faster than the M20K its dispatchability was poor. Unlike the M20K there was always something broke on the 601P that make it unavailable at times when you need it. On four ocassions at remote locations outside the US he had to take the airlines because the 601P was broke. Aside from the dispatchability there was the added ownership cost (three times) due to bigger hangar, maintenace, insurance and fuel. While the M20K was a work horse the 601P became a hangar queen. A hangar neighbor has a 1980 Baron 58. Not as bad as the 601P but not as reliable neither faster than the M20M. BTW I have ferried four M20M to Europe with LR tanks, a lot of spare part and survival equipment (400 pounds overgross) and never had any problems on performance except on taxing (over grass) or trying to tow it by hand. I used to tell my 601P friend (when he was bragging) that my M20J comes with a free one week hotel and car per trip and no need to worry about airline flyback.

 

José

[gjkirsch]

David

I am with you.  I can't get near that performace on 13 GPH.  I can pull it back to 27/2350 and get 175 but I am still using 17GPH.  I do get between 190 and 195 at 15,000 burning just under 20gph using 30/2400 with TKS and an attena farm that the CIA would be proud to have!

Gordon

[Cris]

John- Needs vs Wants, well said. Years ago I was convinced I "needed" a Malibu and was coming off a 231. After I went thru Malibu training & purchased the A/C it did not go thru pre by.. Thank Goodness. I went back to a 201 & was thrilled that I did not have the maintenace & had almost perfect dipatchability. Some times one just gets lucky.

[johnggreen]

Gentlemen,

I've been away from the Mooney site for a couple of weeks but was pleased to come back and see your comments and questions.  As for being away, I got completely engrossed in a discussion of GPS approaches, what constitutes "established", etc. and came to the conclusion that my knowledge of the GPS approach, which I regularly use, hasn't kept up with the advance in the system capabilities.  So, I've been studying my butt off.  Anyway, I am somewhat caught up and happy to be back with "friends?".  Not everyone on this site would agree to that!!!

Now, there are two subjects here.  1. my power settings and performance and 2. my thoughts and yours on moving away from the Mooney.  I'm going to address both but in seperate posts.  I may not get it all done tonight as I have been building fence at my ranch all day and tired as *****, but I will eventually get it all done.

I'll close this post and start one on power settings and performance.

Jgreen

[AndyFromCB]

Quote: gjkirsch

David

I am with you.  I can't get near that performace on 13 GPH.  I can pull it back to 27/2350 and get 175 but I am still using 17GPH.  I do get between 190 and 195 at 15,000 burning just under 20gph using 30/2400 with TKS and an attena farm that the CIA would be proud to have!

Gordon

[johnggreen]

GJ & TLS Driver,

When I said 13 gph, I really meant 13 and somethng (between 13 & 14) which I see in warmer weather.  I log my power settings, fuel burns, and performance regularly and lately, I've been seeing just over 14 with the settings I referenced.

First, let me "validate" my info by saying that I have been flying this airplane now for seven years and about 700 hours so this is not what "I think" I saw.  Secondly, I am very fortunate that my Bravo is simply faster than book by almost 5 knots at all power settings and that is with TKS.  Finally, almost all my flights are 500-700 nm with full fuel, my wife, and baggage which is to say, I'm almost always at gross on takeoff.

If winds allow, I will file for 12-16 thousand.  The power setting I use unless I really need to extend my range is 2200 rpm and 30".  I almost always lean to 1650 degrees or peak whichever comes first.  At 13,000', 2200 and 28" will give me 13-14 gph and 175 knots anyday, anytime, all day long.  That is from initial level off and will increase some as I burn off fuel.  On a trip in December to VA, my wife, one of my adult sons, and me with bags went to 15,000 and at 2200/30" were burning less than 15 gph and truing 183 knots.

Now, I'm not going to debate with anyone whether my mixture settings are good or bad for my engine.  My CHT at those altitudes and settings barely go over 300 degrees and the engine is turbine smooth.  I had the Bravo in the shop this month for some maintenance items (rebuilt alternators, speed brakes, and prop) and had them check the compressions as I usually do at 6 months after my annuals and my compressions are NEW, across the board, so, as I said, I'm not debating mixture settings.

Now, you want to know how to judge your performance.  I'm not the expert, but here are some tips. Get out your Lycoming engine manual.  You will find that it pertains to all TIO-540 models.  Yours is the AF1B.  70% of the pages in there DO NOT pertain to your engine, find the ones that do.  It will give you horsepower for various power setting and the correct fuel burn at lean limit.

You will find that most cruise power settings set forth in the POH are greater than 75%.  At lean limit, the TIO-540 AF1B is supposed to burn 15 gph at 200 horsepower.  At best power, it should be a little higher, maybe 17 gph.  Remember, fuel burn is horsepower and horsepower is fuel burn, with the engine properly leaned you should be burning 7.5 gph per 100 horsepower.  If you aren't then something is wrong.  Excess fuel, i.e. too rich a mixture, is simply going out the tailpipe unburned.  Proper leaning is essential.

Now, you're going to hear a lot of noise about running "too lean".  According to the "experts" at Advanced Pilot Seminars who teach you how to run LOP, you simply can't hurt an engine at 65% and below.  My very unprofessional opinion is that since the Bravo engine is rated at a relatively modest 270 horsepower (for 540 cu. in.) I don't think you are going to hurt it at 75% or below.  You will note from the other engines listed in the Lycoming Operator's Manual that most 540's are producing a great deal more than 270 horsepower.

The most important thing to control for engine life  is simply heat.  Avoid high CHT's.   If you don't have GAMI's get them.  If you are running CHT's of over 350, (I hope you have an six cyllinder engine monitor, if you don't get that) then you need to have somebody who knows what they are doing redo your baffling.

I'll let you get out your LOM and study it.  I'll be glad to answer any other questions, but again, I'm no expert, just have some experience.  If you are buring 18-20 gph on 75% or less horsepower, either you are doing something wrong or there is something seriously amiss in your engine.

Before I close this post, I'll give one more example.  On July 4 of last year, my wife and I departed Durango, CO, for KGNF.  We had not one bit of tailwind.  We flew either at 13 or 15, can't remember at 175 knots and landed with 14 gallons of fuel and we have the standard 88 usable tanks.  It's on Flightaware, N21448.

Jgreen

 

[johnggreen]

While I was writing the last post, Astelmaszek was posting and all I can say is he must be riding in my back seat.  We pretty much wrote the same responses though seperately.

Jgreen

[AndyFromCB]

removed and corrected

[AndyFromCB]

John,

Now, let me correct you here a little bit. I'm sure that you are in top shape and wife is a lovely size 0 but even then when you  say almost always at gross at take off, what you really mean: almost always a bit over gross at take off. 950 - 534fuel - 56tks = 360lb ;-)

Andy

 

 

[jetdriven]

John, you can't hurt an io360 either at 75% or less.   We run lop exclusively.  At 10.0 GPH as long at CHT are livable, let it eat.  You are right, the bravo is unique.  

[AndyFromCB]

I can always tell on the next run up if I run my Bravo too rich during the previous flight because my sparks are fouled up and I need to get up to 2000rpm for a few minutes and pull the mixture back to clean them.

I do not put the mixture all the way in the landings any more either. If I have to go around, I just go right to left on all my controls. My prop never leaves 2400 for landings either.

[johnggreen]

Cris, Piloto, Thinwing,

Now, as to my "moving up".

I've owned a lot of airplanes in my days; 32 in all.  I flew twins for years when I was in the construction business and I've fed some pretty hungry engines and airframes including a Queen Air and a Beech H-18.

When I started looking around for more room, I didn't realize that the Bravo had spoiled me.  Yea, I want room and useful load and seats and such, but I've got speed, turbo, deice, efficiency, and dual everything except for engines.  That, as you know, was my point.  Moving to a B-55 Baron would have given me a little room, load and two seats.  I would have lost my high altitude capability and probably my FIKI.  What I would have gotten was at least 2.5 times the operating cost.  Anything bigger, and 3 to 3.5 times operating cost would be more like it.

On top of that, I remember the Twin Bone and Twin Beech that everytime I landed, I needed a mechanic for one or another squawks.  So far, knock on wood, the Bravo has been 100% mission ready.  Now, I'll admit, that is the product of some very diligent and forward thinking maintenance, but that is perfectly alright.  At least I own and airplane I can afford to pamper.

I went to look at one twin with check in hand.  I came back in the Mooney and with the check and so damn glad I didn't have that maintenance hog I left on the ramp that I was almost in tears of joy.

As I said in my original post, this is one heck of an airplane, and for now, I'm just going to fly it and count my good fortune.

Jgreen

[johnggreen]

Andy,

SSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

Overgross is illegal !!!!!

FYI, at 62, Karen really is a size 6.

Jgreen

[AndyFromCB]

I would never do that myself either on purpose, John, but on the delivery flight, persons unnamed accidentaly topped off it off at Pueblo, so she was about 250lb over on take off. Not the smartest thing to do, but supposedly the airplane was still doing 900fpm ;-) Not that I would know. I find myself about 60lb from where we should be at and we're always get better than book climb rates. I'm quite sure that spar never even notices. On the way back,  east, taking off from either Granby or Jackson Hole, we are always 160lb under gross, then it really makes a difference in clearing the peaks by 4000 to 6000 foot margins. 

[orangemtl]

Only viable counterargument:  Acclaim.

Else: no contest. More fast, but more gas.

[AndyFromCB]

There is one more viable alternative, a late F33A, with IO550 and TA Turbo. It will easily hit 200knots, legaly carry 1300lb with TKS tanks full. Now, climbs rates ate 3850lb will be miserable and it will cost approximatelly $300K to build an airplane like that or buy one already done. There is one on beechtalk right now without TKS for $225K. Now, I paid $129K for my Bravo, put another 17K into fixing all squaks and upgrading WSI 300 to GDL69 and MX20 to GMX200. So 150K total or so by the time all is said and done. That extra 150K will buy a hell of a Cherokee 6 on top of the Mooney if I even want to carry a piano. I feel kind of ill with just one airplane right now but for now the other one is going to be a Super Decathlon.

[gjkirsch]

John

Thanks for the response.  The difference is in how I was taught to lean the plane.  I am running 100 degrees rich of peak.  No matter what I do my cylinders stay in the low 300 degrees and the oil is 190 to 195 but I do worry about the exhaust and turbo long term reliability at peak or 1650.

 

Gordon

[johnggreen]

Gordon,

I just took/am taking the Advanced Pilot Seminar online course.  They are the guys that teach LOP operation.  I learned a great deal, but not enough.  I have a lot of questions that I have been saving until I fully complete the course.  They aren't promoting Voodoo.  They back up everything they say with the most complete engine operation statistics you can imagine.  They have one of the most advanced dianostic engine test cells in the world with more data feed than you can imagine.

They basically show that engine wear and longevity are mostly tied to CHT's and cylinder pressure than EGT.  One thing you will bring away from it is a satisfaction that LOP, properly done, probably puts less stress on the engine than any other mode of operation.  That said, I have tried it on my Bravo as it has GAMI's and yes, it works, but not enough improvement over my "old" power settings (the one's I gave you) to be worth the trouble.

I get the "sense" that EGT's are the least of your worries in engine operation; CHT's and cylinder pressure being the most important.  There seem to be a lot of variables as to the EGT's an engine monitoring system reports.  One thing is for sure, the temps at the turbo are a long way from the cylinder.  I also "think" that a turbo is like a car engine.  On a water cooled engine it operates at about 210 degrees forever.  At 240, it is going to fail.  I don't believe that 1650 hurts the Bravo turbocharger.  That is my take, at least.

I will present this scenario, question directly to the folks at APS and get their response.  Do you have a 6 point engine monitor?

One thing is certain; at the fuel burns you reported, you are pushing a lot of unburned fuel out your exhaust.

Jgreen

[johnggreen]

Jetdriven,

What's your take on Gordon's situation and the turbo?

Jgreen

[AndyFromCB]

Gordon,

When the Bravo first came out it was called the TLS. I suffered a rash of engine problems from the start. Everyone was running theirs at peak of 1750TIT. It wasn't the turbo or exhaust. It was the cylinder's exhaust valves that were failing. Hence the Bravo Wet Head mod (sounds kind of dirty, doesn't it). Are you running 100ROP based on EGT? Or 100ROP TIT? If TIT, then 1650 is the number and you should be seeing our fuel flows. As to LOP, I've never tried running my engine that way other that when I first realized what what leaning to peak TIT or 1750 meant, as in I pulled the mixture past TIT when it didn't peak before 1650. It run resonably well at lower power settings. Waiting to replace my GEM602 with the new G1 soon before I can tell more about my spread becase I find the GEM to be virtually unusable.

Andy

[jetdriven]

I don't know enough about Bravo's but 100 ROP sounds like an expensive FF and 1650 or less those turbos are reported to last forever.

I have also read that the Bravo engine is one of the most difficult to get to run LOP and some simply will not run smoothly there.

Quote: johnggreen

Jetdriven,

What's your take on Gordon's situation and the turbo?

Jgreen

[KSMooniac]

John, does your Bravo run LOP?  It sounds like your power settings are close to LOP or at peak, but not quite LOP.  I'm curious if yours will run that way... you could be running 80% power at 15.8 GPH with your new-found APS knowledge.  (Their course, especially live, is the BEST way to learn everything about engine management.)