donkaye Posted September 5, 2022 Report Share Posted September 5, 2022 2 hours ago, DCarlton said: You mentioned earlier, you've put three engines over overhauls in your Bravo over 4000 hours. So roughly, 1300 hrs average actual TBO. Can you provide any insight into engine maintenance requirements up to around 1000 hours. Is it possible to zero time a Bravo engine, and make it to 1000 hours without a lot of unplanned maintenance? Did you need cylinders mid time before you had to overhaul? Anything major before a 1000 hours? Thanks. I've only experienced one newly overhauled NA engine in my flying time. On the first engine I had the Bravo conversion done at 1,395 hours. Lycoming basically gave us the conversion with a charge of $5,000 if you had it done within 2 years. I waited until the 2 years was just about up to get the most use out of the conversion. So I took it over TBO to 2,395 hours before I replaced it with a Reman Zero Time Engine. The second engine went to 1,600+ hours and would have made it past TBO had there not been a shop incident during an Annual a few years ago that dropped the airplane on its nose during a Gear Bypass Switch test. Two prop blades were bent, and although the prop wasn't in motion, an engine teardown was required. Since I had only 400 hours left on the engine, I chose to save myself over $50,000 and sacrifice the 400 hours I had left on the engine. I purchased a new Reman for the 3rd engine discounted by what would've been the cost of a teardown, labor for the replacement, and other costs like loss of use that their insurance company paid for. I wouldn't accept a repair of the prop blades, so their insurance company paid for a new prop. I did have to replace two cylinders on the second engine due to intake valve leaks. That was unusual. At the time I think both cylinders were replace for a little under $9,000 including labor. Currently I have 400 hours on the 3rd engine. I expect all Bravo engines should go to TBO if they are treated properly. That doesn't mean running them at 34/2400 at 1750°TIT. So the premise above of 1,300 hours TBO for the Bravo engine is incorrect. Regarding other costs: I recommend proactively overhauling the turbo and waste gate at about 1,100 hours. Relatively speaking it is not too expensive. Main Turbo in Visalia, California does mine. Expect some exhaust work during the engine's life. I've had several cracks from time to time that required the part to be sent out for repair. Religiously change the oil every 25 hours and plugs every 450 hours. That's about it. 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexz Posted September 5, 2022 Report Share Posted September 5, 2022 51 minutes ago, donkaye said: On the first engine I had the Bravo conversion done at 1,395 hours. Lycoming basically gave us the conversion with a charge of $5,000 if you had it done within 2 years. I waited until the 2 years was just about up to get the most use out of the conversion. So I took it over TBO to 2,395 hours before I replaced it with a Reman Zero Time Engine. The second engine went to 1,600+ hours and would have made it past TBO had there not been a shop incident during an Annual a few years ago that dropped the airplane on its nose during a Gear Bypass Switch test. Two prop blades were bent, and although the prop wasn't in motion, an engine teardown was required. Since I had only 400 hours left on the engine, I chose to save myself over $50,000 and sacrifice the 400 hours I had left on the engine. I purchased a new Reman for the 3rd engine discounted by what would've been the cost of a teardown, labor for the replacement, and other costs like loss of use that their insurance company paid for. I wouldn't accept a repair of the prop blades, so their insurance company paid for a new prop. I did have to replace two cylinders on the second engine due to intake valve leaks. That was unusual. At the time I think both cylinders were replace for a little under $9,000 including labor. Currently I have 400 hours on the 3rd engine. I expect all Bravo engines should go to TBO is they are treated properly. That doesn't mean running them at 34/2400 at 1750°TIT. So the premise above of 1,300 hours TBO for the Bravo engine is incorrect. Regarding other costs: I recommend proactively overhauling the turbo and waste gate at about 1,100 hours. Relatively speaking it is not too expensive. Main Turbo in Visalia, California does mine. Expect some exhaust work during the engine's life. I've had several cracks from time to time that required the part to be sent out for repair. Religiously change the oil every 25 hours and plugs every 450 hours. That's about it. Don, do you have TKS on yours or just heated prop ? If no TKS would you go for TKS upgrade ? Cheers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alextstone Posted September 5, 2022 Report Share Posted September 5, 2022 I'll chime in...I've owned a J an Ovation, an Acclaim and now a Bravo. Of the four, my favorite to fly was the Acclaim although now that I have a GFC500 installed, the difference is diminished considerably. As Don Kaye stated though, the acquisition cost, maintenance and insurance were significantly higher for the Acclaim than the Bravo. The Bravo offers me similar performance while keeping my costs down to some degree relatively speaking. My wife and I routinely fly 5.5 hour legs over most weather, etc. We trust the aircraft. That's saying a lot. Having FIKI is essential for the places we go. Yes, it's an expensive engine to maintain. However, it's half to 2/3 as expensive as a twin. As an aside, sadly, I read an accident report of a brand new Cirrus SR22 that crashed, killing several on board last week. Engine failure. All planes are dangerous to some degree. Having one that has stood the test of time and has been well maintained to me is in some ways safer than the "shiny new penny" and it is orders of magnitude less expensive. Just ramblings from a guy who loves Mooney, loves aviation and it always trying to learn more. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niko182 Posted September 5, 2022 Report Share Posted September 5, 2022 Have you thought of a 252 rocket maybe? Has the speed upgrade you're looking for and has the upgrades of a 252 that the 231 doesnt have. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkaye Posted September 5, 2022 Report Share Posted September 5, 2022 37 minutes ago, alexz said: Don, do you have TKS on yours or just heated prop ? If no TKS would you go for TKS upgrade ? Cheers! I do not have TKS on my airplane. If I lived in the Northwest or back East, I would have put it on long ago. At the time I think it was $45,000. Now it is around $75,000. In my 30 years of ownership, I've only accidentally had icing encounters a couple of times early on. I understand weather better now, and we have much better tools for both preflight planning and in the air avoidance. I don't HAVE to be or go anywhere at a specific time, so I just plan trips to avoid cloud flying in the wintertime. However, it's much easier to do that in California than elsewhere. I have taught in and ferried planes with TKS in conditions where I wouldn't have gone in my plane. Having said that, TKS can get you into trouble if you're not careful. I did a trip last year with a student who had just purchased his Bravo that had TKS, and based on the type of cloud, chose to deviate a considerable distance to avoid flying in what I knew would be uncomfortable conditions. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexz Posted September 5, 2022 Report Share Posted September 5, 2022 12 minutes ago, donkaye said: I do not have TKS on my airplane. If I lived in the Northwest or back East, I would have put it on long ago. At the time I think it was $45,000. Now it is around $75,000. In my 30 years of ownership, I've only accidentally had icing encounters a couple of times early on. I understand weather better now, and we have much better tools for both preflight planning and in the air avoidance. I don't HAVE to be or go anywhere at a specific time, so I just plan trips to avoid cloud flying in the wintertime. However, it's much easier to do that in California than elsewhere. I have taught in and ferried planes with TKS in conditions where I wouldn't have gone in my plane. Having said that, TKS can get you into trouble if you're not careful. I did a trip last year with a student who had just purchased his Bravo that had TKS, and based on the type of cloud, chose to deviate a considerable distance to avoid flying in what I knew would be uncomfortable conditions. Thank you. Obviously using superior intelligence so that one does not need to use superior airplane or skills goes without a question I think if we wait couple more years 75k will become like 45k 5 years ago :) Just have to time it right before they raise the price.... Bravos are excellent machines thought even without TKS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Leader Posted September 5, 2022 Author Report Share Posted September 5, 2022 1 hour ago, Niko182 said: Have you thought of a 252 rocket maybe? Has the speed upgrade you're looking for and has the upgrades of a 252 that the 231 doesnt have. I have considered a Rocket but I don't know if they are still in business anymore. Are there parts or support still available? I would hate to be saddled with an airplane that has the longevity of the M20L (the engine AD makes it an expensive paperweight and there are no STC's to convert it to something else). I would prefer something current and supported. I am concerned that as my M20K ages, parts will be more expensive and harder to come by. That is why I am considering a Bravo and requesting advice from the experts who own them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niko182 Posted September 5, 2022 Report Share Posted September 5, 2022 23 minutes ago, Red Leader said: I have considered a Rocket but I don't know if they are still in business anymore. Are there parts or support still available? I would hate to be saddled with an airplane that has the longevity of the M20L (the engine AD makes it an expensive paperweight and there are no STC's to convert it to something else). I would prefer something current and supported. I am concerned that as my M20K ages, parts will be more expensive and harder to come by. That is why I am considering a Bravo and requesting advice from the experts who own them. As far as i have read on here, rocket still supports the rocket and missile completely. @aviatoreb and @M016576 are 2 guys that have experience owning these airplanes. Maybe they can chime in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Leader Posted September 5, 2022 Author Report Share Posted September 5, 2022 How do the M20K Rocket and M20M compare? Are the engines the same? Horsepower? Fuel Burn? Performance? Still leaning toward the Bravo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danb Posted September 5, 2022 Report Share Posted September 5, 2022 15 hours ago, donkaye said: A few additional comments... Truth be told all of our airplanes are good 2 place airplanes with all the baggage you want to carry. Yes, you can carry four people, but range is limited and close quarters are good for 2½ hours max. If you want 4 people and baggage for a long cross country, a Mooney and most other single engine airplanes are not the airplanes to have. If turbines are not included, probably the first airplane that would be good to carry 4 people a long distance would be the Twin C310Q with 305 HP turbocharged engines. In the turboprop, for me it would be the new Epic with 1200 HP, 34,000 ft ceiling, and 317 knot cruse speed on 50 gal/hr. I fly mine with 2 weight and balances; one with the back seats in and one without them. In the last year I haven't flown with the back seats in. 1½ years ago I stuck one back seat in to take a couple of trusted contractors to San Diego to give me some bids. Would I consider upgrading a none 252 K Model. No. The critical altitude without the Merlin waste gate and intercooler is 13,000 feet, not much better than a NA J Model. Depending on the K and engine, I have found the K to be too susceptible to overheating in the climb, and some have had very anemic climb rates that sometimes have actually scared me. I wouldn't want to take off over an obstacle in a few I have taught in. For 2 people and going on long cross country flights for maximum single engine piston capability, I'm back to recommending the Bravo as the best value for the money. I've made a bunch of comments above that some may disagree with. How reliable are my comments for those who haven't flown with me? If anyone is interested, I've attached a couple of spreadsheets to help make that decision. Logbook 9:4:2022.pdf 66.1 kB · 17 downloads Logbook Summary of Flight Instrucxtion Given 9:5:2022.pdf 53.21 kB · 11 downloads You do nice work Don.. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkaye Posted September 6, 2022 Report Share Posted September 6, 2022 2 hours ago, Red Leader said: How do the M20K Rocket and M20M compare? Are the engines the same? Horsepower? Fuel Burn? Performance? Still leaning toward the Bravo. The Rocket uses a Continental 305 HP engine, the Bravo the 270 HP Lycoming TIO540AF1B. The Rocket can climb at 1,800 ft/min with all that excess horsepower; the Bravo at 1,100 ft/min. That's where the comparison ends. While I like the Rocket, if you want to be legal, it's a 2 person airplane. All the ones I have flown have long range tanks that are useless if you want to be legal unless you are flying with one person. Now the people who have Rockets will disagree. In fact I couldn't believe it when I saw 4 people with full fuel pile into one in Sioux Falls headed to Las Vegas. I guess they were going to the right place because they were totally out of the envelope and were basically gambling with their lives. I wonder if the non-pilots new the danger they were putting themselves in. I wish I could attach my Rocket Excel Spreadsheet file to let you play "what if", but Mooneyspace doesn't accept that format. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
affricate Posted September 6, 2022 Report Share Posted September 6, 2022 On 9/4/2022 at 5:53 PM, N252MK said: Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk I went from a Cessna 172 to a TLS Bravo. I'm a happy man when I'm in the air. I just love this thing. It's fast, economical, safe and stable. Handles great in the AZ heat / density altitude/ thermals, too (temperatures over 107 F alone this weekend). Gets me from Tucson to Baton in less than 6 hrs with a stop. Spent over 80K on MOH, new hoses, tank reseal, turbo OH, tires, breaks, LEDs, etc. It's my forever plane. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted September 6, 2022 Report Share Posted September 6, 2022 LB forever-plane club is growing in size…. Once going turbo… few go back…. We saw one MSer take a break from having a Long Body…. Back with an Ovation in not much time later… Rocket engineering is still in business… technically… if relying on their parts is critical…. It would be good to find out what their plan for support will be going forwards…. My O3 powered O1 / Standing Ovation is a Rocket Engineering product…. Fully supported by Mooney… no requirement for support from RE…. This is more of a personal financial discussion… with personal being the most important… personal choices… The Bravo is a newer design than any of the M20Ks… It is fully developed like only the latest M20Ks… It can have AC and TKS… where the M20K doesn’t… It has a Lycoming… where the M20K has the other brand… One thing the Bravo doesn’t have… Curvy intakes pipes that allowed for well balanced LOP Ops… The future of the M20K stopped with the Awesome Rocket…. The future of the Bravo…. Is still open to the MGTOW project that is still on the table at Mooney… If these things are not your cup of tea…. You can claim The Bravo isn’t right for me at this time… No harm, no fowl…. Or foul…. If you really like LOP ops in your M20K…. And you want that wide range of operations in a LB…. Go Acclaim! PP thoughts only, not a plane sales guy… Best regards, -a- 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCarlton Posted September 6, 2022 Report Share Posted September 6, 2022 4 hours ago, donkaye said: The Rocket uses a Continental 305 HP engine, the Bravo the 270 HP Lycoming TIO540AF1B. The Rocket can climb at 1,800 ft/min with all that excess horsepower; the Bravo at 1,100 ft/min. That's where the comparison ends. While I like the Rocket, if you want to be legal, it's a 2 person airplane. All the ones I have flown have long range tanks that are useless if you want to be legal unless you are flying with one person. Now the people who have Rockets will disagree. In fact I couldn't believe it when I saw 4 people with full fuel pile into one in Sioux Falls headed to Las Vegas. I guess they were going to the right place because they were totally out of the envelope and were basically gambling with their lives. I wonder if the non-pilots new the danger they were putting themselves in. I wish I could attach my Rocket Excel Spreadsheet file to let you play "what if", but Mooneyspace doesn't accept that format. The Rocket firewall forward weighs significantly more then the K model firewall forward? Enough to cause W&B issues? Ive never seen the weights of the 360 vs 520, and 540. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkaye Posted September 6, 2022 Report Share Posted September 6, 2022 12 minutes ago, DCarlton said: The Rocket firewall forward weighs significantly more then the K model firewall forward? Enough to cause W&B issues? Ive never seen the weights of the 360 vs 520, and 540. Thanks. Yes. PM me your email and I'll send you the Rocket Weight and Balance Spreadsheet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niko182 Posted September 6, 2022 Report Share Posted September 6, 2022 9 minutes ago, donkaye said: Yes. PM me your email and I'll send you the Rocket Weight and Balance Spreadsheet If its an excel, im pretty sure you can upload it on the forum post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BravoWhiskey Posted September 6, 2022 Report Share Posted September 6, 2022 7 hours ago, carusoam said: LB forever-plane club is growing in size…. Once going turbo… few go back…. We saw one MSer take a break from having a Long Body…. Back with an Ovation in not much time later… Rocket engineering is still in business… technically… if relying on their parts is critical…. It would be good to find out what their plan for support will be going forwards…. My O3 powered O1 / Standing Ovation is a Rocket Engineering product…. Fully supported by Mooney… no requirement for support from RE…. This is more of a personal financial discussion… with personal being the most important… personal choices… The Bravo is a newer design than any of the M20Ks… It is fully developed like only the latest M20Ks… It can have AC and TKS… where the M20K doesn’t… It has a Lycoming… where the M20K has the other brand… One thing the Bravo doesn’t have… Curvy intakes pipes that allowed for well balanced LOP Ops… The future of the M20K stopped with the Awesome Rocket…. The future of the Bravo…. Is still open to the MGTOW project that is still on the table at Mooney… If these things are not your cup of tea…. You can claim The Bravo isn’t right for me at this time… No harm, no fowl…. Or foul…. If you really like LOP ops in your M20K…. And you want that wide range of operations in a LB…. Go Acclaim! PP thoughts only, not a plane sales guy… Best regards, -a- With the FIKI and AC plus everything else you don’t get much UL out of it… I’m at 832lb. And top speed might be impacted a bit. I get about 172-175 @ 12.5k running @ 30/2200. I don’t see 180 at that power setting until 15k plus. With a fuel burn of about 17.5gph. So I guess like everything else there is compromise. Overall I wanted the plane for work… great for business, lame for family vacation. If it was just me and my wife (which it will be when kids get to college) it would be easier to plan some serious trips. With the four of us we are limited to no luggage/no shopping day trips. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alextstone Posted September 6, 2022 Report Share Posted September 6, 2022 On 9/5/2022 at 2:21 AM, donkaye said: Logbook 9:4:2022.pdf 66.1 kB · 23 downloads Logbook Summary of Flight Instrucxtion Given 9:5:2022.pdf 53.21 kB · 15 downloads And this, gentlemen and ladies, is the internet equivalent of a mic drop. Don, you are such a wealth of experience and knowledge. Thank you for being such an active contributor to this forum. Respectfully, Alex 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fly Boomer Posted September 6, 2022 Report Share Posted September 6, 2022 8 hours ago, DCarlton said: The Rocket firewall forward weighs significantly more then the K model firewall forward? Enough to cause W&B issues? Ive never seen the weights of the 360 vs 520, and 540. Thanks. Engine weighs significantly more. All the Rockets I've seen have at least a couple of Charlie weights (about as far back in the fuselage as you can get) to help balance the engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkaye Posted September 6, 2022 Report Share Posted September 6, 2022 7 hours ago, Niko182 said: If its an excel, im pretty sure you can upload it on the forum post. I just tried it again and was alerted that the file format would't work. It would be nice if Craig could fix that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fly Boomer Posted September 6, 2022 Report Share Posted September 6, 2022 1 minute ago, donkaye said: I just tried it again and was alerted that the file format would't work. It would be nice if Craig could fix that. You post a lot of information. Any chance you are at the max for pics and other files? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkaye Posted September 6, 2022 Report Share Posted September 6, 2022 4 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said: You post a lot of information. Any chance you are at the max for pics and other files? The acceptable file formats are listed and xls is not one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fly Boomer Posted September 6, 2022 Report Share Posted September 6, 2022 10 minutes ago, donkaye said: The acceptable file formats are listed and xls is not one of them. Must be one of the things that changed during the last conversion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slowflyin Posted September 6, 2022 Report Share Posted September 6, 2022 I'll chime in. Flew an F for 450 hours. Loved it! Nice UL, reasonable speed, low fuel burn. In-laws moved farther away... offsite work farther away...... Most importantly, my bride ask is we could go faster! I bought my Bravo from Jimmy. It had been on the market for a long time. 1800 hours on the engine scared most folks away. I sourced the logbooks and oil analysis and didn't find any gotchas. Bought it planning to fly it until the engine let me know it was time. All along I was collecting parts. New jugs, motor mounts..... At 2200 hours she was still running like a watch. All compression were still good with satisfactory oil analysis results. Financially the time was right, so I broke down and overhauled. This engine had the Bravo conversion at 300 hours and was still running the same top end with no cylinder work! According to the logs, aside from some exhaust work and the typical accessory failures she ran trouble free until overhaul. I concur with Don K, this engine is extremely reliable and durable with the exception of the exhaust. Like lots of turbos, budget for mid-time repairs. Dispatch rate has been fantastic. A respectable rate of climb above all but the worst weather returns more direct routes, center coms only during cruise, a quieter (less wind noise) cabin, and less traffic. My flights are busy in the beginning, leisurely in cruise, and busy at the end. All in all, she's a joy to fly and very capable aircraft. No remorse. All that being said, if you don't like to fly high, a Bravo isn't your best choice. Anything below 8k leaves me wondering why I'm going so slow. One more thought, mine runs smooth LOP. My challenge is keeping the TIT within my personal limit on the lean side. At 25-50 LOP the TIT is well above 1650. Others have had better luck. I've yet to try multiple power settings so I'm still optimistic. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alextstone Posted September 6, 2022 Report Share Posted September 6, 2022 1 hour ago, donkaye said: I just tried it again and was alerted that the file format would't work. It would be nice if Craig could fix that. Try converting it to a .csv file... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.