Mooney TLS/Bravo - Why would I want one?

[irishpilot]

Just to follow-up, I (finally) received a replay today from APA with an insurance quote. They want to bill me $9679 for a 12 month term. I did not see any requirements for a checkout - likely because I already own a 231, but that rate appears excessive.

That's crazy high. I paid $2400/yr in 2020 for my Bravo. Rates have increased a bit, but not by that much.

Lots of comments from really smart people so far. My $0.02 is if you're not willing to fly in the O2 levels, the Bravo is just a wee bit faster than your current plane. However, up high this bird shines. 17.5-FL230 was my long distance jam and I saw 195 with a FIKI bird.

It's all about mission and cost.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[carusoam]

Let’s discuss the grenade…

What happened, why?

Best regards,

-a-

[toomany]

lifters in cylinders 2,3 and 4 came apart causing the engine casing around the lifters to split and open up into holes the size of a dime to a quarter. from there it looks like we lost a rod and several piston skirts - i still have number 3 cylinder which still has the piston wedged in it. luckily we were 5 miles from a 5001' rnwy at 4000' so we made it dead stick and only used 5000'. i stalled the prop hoping to save the engine and was successful in saving the crank.  it needed turned .10 but was able to get yellow tagged.  interestingly we lost very little oil and the whole ordeal felt like a prop seal giving up the ghost - the vibration i felt wasn't anything i imagined a catastrophic engine failure would feel like - much more mundane. 

i suspect the engine was run at very high mp and low rpm or the mag timing got way out of wack somewhere before i got it - the plugs didn't show any signs of detonation but in full disclosure i'm not sure i could determine if fine wires were detonating. we we're running about 28.5/2350 when it happened w tit at around 1625°.  another interesting bit is that the previous owner didn't want to move it to a mooney svc center for the prebuy - we insisted, and when i looked at the flight to the svc center from home base the cruise was about 140 kts. so it wasn't ran in normal op range to pre- buy. 

[Horis]

On 9/4/2022 at 7:37 PM, Red Leader said:

I am toying with the idea of selling my M20K (with all the performance updates) and replacing it with a Mooney TLS/Bravo. I have done lots of research and have determined that there are differences in panel height, fuel burn and (most importantly) speed. My K is plenty fast (about 165kts at 65% at 12,500) and at about a 12gal/hr burn rate - very efficient but I have a desire to go faster. I would go from a mid-body to a long body and (finally) get folding rear seats. Is the Bravo such a better machine that it would make sense for me to get one? My mission is strictly personal. The wife and I like to go different places and I recently flew my 231 across the country where it performed beautifully. I guess I am asking if it would be worth the switch? I can afford it, should I?

You will love the speed! I flew mine nonstop from Burnet Texas to St Lauderdale FL in 5.5 hours non-stop (not sure I would have done that with a wife) and from phoenix to Burnet TX in 3.75 hours!

[rbp]

28 minutes ago, Horis said:

5.5 hours non-stop (

I burn 18 gallons per hour. I’m not sure how you do this.

[Niko182]

1 minute ago, rbp said:

I burn 18 gallons per hour. I’m not sure how you do this.

Tailwind probably? Both of these are east bound. Also how high did he fly. And what did he cruise at?

[rbp]

1 minute ago, Niko182 said:

Tailwind probably? Both of these are east bound. Also how high did he fly. And what did he cruise at?

How does a tailwind increase endurance?

[Niko182]

Just now, rbp said:

How does a tailwind increase endurance?

I thought you were saying you couldn’t do that trip in that timeframe. I looked at it from the wrong perspective. My bad.

and a new answer, long range tanks?Without speed brakes I think a lot of the LB Mooneys can fit over 130 gallons on board.

[rbp]

5 minutes ago, Niko182 said:

LB Mooneys can fit over 130 gallons on board

89

[Niko182]

11 minutes ago, rbp said:

89

With long range monroy tanks you can fit at least 120. There was one guy on here that was able to fit 138 gallons with the monroy long range tanks.

[Rick Junkin]

11 hours ago, rbp said:

I burn 18 gallons per hour. I’m not sure how you do this.

I get, on average, 13.8gph and 143KIAS LOP at 30/2200, true airspeed of ~175+/- at high teens altitudes. With standard 89g tanks that yields 5.5 hours with a little less than 1 hour reserve.

[rbp]

8 hours ago, Rick Junkin said:

I get 13.8gph and 143KIAS on average LOP at 30/2200, true airspeed of ~175+/- at high teens altitudes. With standard 89g tanks that yields 5.5 hours with a little less than 1 hour reserve.

You’re one of the only people running a Bravo lean of peak. Maybe the only? 

I guess it’s possible at slow cruise

[slowflyin]

Depending on the mission, I'll run LOP occasionally.   Engine runs smooth but more often than not, TIT is my limiting factor.  25 LOP sometimes results in TIT over 1650 so I have to run leaner or go ROP.  I'm still experimenting and haven't quite figured out what conditions allow for optimal TIT LOP.  Last LOP flight was at 10K, 13.5 GPH, and 164 true with TIT about 1640.   I was around 40 LOP.    I really like my TIT closer to a 1625 max.  Not sure why since Lycoming says 1650 max.  

[rbp]

12 hours ago, Horis said:

5.5 hours non-stop

let me rephrase the question: how is it possible to do a 5.5 hour trip in a factory Bravo (standard tanks) operated at 75% power not contrary to the POH (ie. ROP no LOP)

[donkaye]

45 minutes ago, slowflyin said:

Depending on the mission, I'll run LOP occasionally.   Engine runs smooth but more often than not, TIT is my limiting factor.  25 LOP sometimes results in TIT over 1650 so I have to run leaner or go ROP.  I'm still experimenting and haven't quite figured out what conditions allow for optimal TIT LOP.  Last LOP flight was at 10K, 13.5 GPH, and 164 true with TIT about 1640.   I was around 40 LOP.    I really like my TIT closer to a 1625 max.  Not sure why since Lycoming says 1650 max.  

Personally, I bought the TLS because of its speed.  That means flying it ROP.  I have a student who spent a lot of money getting his TLS to fly LOP.  He is constantly having issues with the engine.  A couple of people on this list have gotten their Bravo to fly LOP.  I'm not one of them.  As I've mentioned previously, I'm on my 3rd engine.  I don't like the TIT to go over 1600.  I think 1650 is too high.  Plan on early overhauls of your waste gate and controllers and turbocharger.  That sort of nullifies the financial benefit of flying LOP.  The 1750 limit in the POH is out of the question.  Never fly it anywhere near that temperature.  Just the musings of a Bravo pilot of 31 years.

[Rick Junkin]

41 minutes ago, donkaye said:

Personally, I bought the TLS because of its speed.

 

41 minutes ago, donkaye said:

Just the musings of a Bravo pilot of 31 years.

I’m certainly not saying I know more than a Bravo pilot of 31 years. But I do know different, and the key in this LOP discussion is in your first statement. We actually agree with each other.

My objective is to run my engine as clean and as cool as possible and still get an acceptable level of performance. So the difference is I’m happy to accept the 5-10% hit on performance to run a cooler and cleaner engine. Any fuel economy is a side benefit and not my primary objective. I’m able to keep the LOP TIT at 1585 and CHTs in the 330s while producing 73% power. The power number comes from unofficial engineering data for LOP operations, so I only mention it as a reference for relative comparison. The most relevant empirical number for our power comparison is KIAS at cruise. Mine is nominally 143KIAS at 16,000.

My point is I run my engine with the same eye toward temperatures as you do. The difference is I accept some speed loss to allow me to run cleaner. And I expect to be able to run well past TBO having run cooler and cleaner. I’ll let you know how it’s going in another 1000 hours, but I’ve had no engine issues, my valves all look great, and my oil filter inspections and analysis show normal or better than normal wear. So far, so good.

Cheers,
Rick

[slowflyin]

25 minutes ago, donkaye said:

Personally, I bought the TLS because of its speed.  That means flying it ROP.  I have a student who spent a lot of money getting his TLS to fly LOP.  He is constantly having issues with the engine.  A couple of people on this list have gotten their Bravo to fly LOP.  I'm not one of them.  As I've mentioned previously, I'm on my 3rd engine.  I don't like the TIT to go over 1600.  I think 1650 is too high.  Plan on early overhauls of your waste gate and controllers and turbocharger.  That sort of nullifies the financial benefit of flying LOP.  The 1750 limit in the POH is out of the question.  Never fly it anywhere near that temperature.  Just the musings of a Bravo pilot of 31 years.

I concur, I like speed as well.  However, on a short flight the time doesn't add up. I give up 8-10 kts LOP.  Percentage wise not a big hit.  I hypothesize running LOP occasionally will clean things up a bit.  Pure speculation on my part.  

Also, I agree on the TIT.  I like closer to 1600 and would never consider 1750.   That being said, I have little confidence it will make my exhaust last until TBO.   Any of your three motors have an exhaust system make it to TBO?   If not, I'm curious, did you start at 1750 and work your way down on temps?  I chose 1600 because it is slightly more conservative than Lycoming's revised 1650.  No real logic on my part.  

Thanks for your comments.  31 years of Bravo time is certainly something to be respected.

 

 

[Niko182]

58 minutes ago, rbp said:

let me rephrase the question: how is it possible to do a 5.5 hour trip in a factory Bravo (standard tanks) operated at 75% power not contrary to the POH (ie. ROP no LOP)

Even with the standard tanks, you can easily fit more than the standard amount. I for example still have the stock tabs for the eagle on my plane which technically only allows 75 gallons. If I keep on filling past the tabs I can get around 105 to 106 gallons in the tanks. The same applies for the 89 gallon model long bodies. You simply keep on filling past the tabs, and you’ll be able to get another 16 or 17 gallons in the tanks. Flying at a lower power setting like 16 gallons per hour would allow 5.5 with reserves.

Edited May 23, 2023 by Niko182

[rbp]

22 minutes ago, slowflyin said:

Also, I agree on the TIT.  I like closer to 1600

I have never run 1650. My target is 1550. Maybe I am over cautious?

[donkaye]

2 hours ago, slowflyin said:

I concur, I like speed as well.  However, on a short flight the time doesn't add up. I give up 8-10 kts LOP.  Percentage wise not a big hit.  I hypothesize running LOP occasionally will clean things up a bit.  Pure speculation on my part.  

Also, I agree on the TIT.  I like closer to 1600 and would never consider 1750.   That being said, I have little confidence it will make my exhaust last until TBO.   Any of your three motors have an exhaust system make it to TBO?   If not, I'm curious, did you start at 1750 and work your way down on temps?  I chose 1600 because it is slightly more conservative than Lycoming's revised 1650.  No real logic on my part.  

Thanks for your comments.  31 years of Bravo time is certainly something to be respected.

 

 

After taking the in person APS Course, I thought with the fuel savings over 2,000 hours, I would get a free engine by running LOP.  I bought the GAMIs and got the differential fuel difference down to below 0.3 gallons.  Then I couldn't get the TIT to get to a reasonable temperature at any combination of LOP power settings.  Instead of going down LOP, it would go up.  So, maybe some people can get their Bravo to run nicely LOP, but the majority cannot.

The engine runs differently LOP.  If the injectors aren't balance perfectly, there will be occasional misbalances that appear as "misses" that are discomforting to both me and my passengers.  OTOH I have flown with students who have the Continental Engine and they seem to run well LOP.

WRT the exhaust system, it is probably the weakest part of the engine.  Yes, I had exhaust work done on the first 2 engines.  The cost was about $7,000 each time.  Welding properly is expensive.  The 3rd engine doesn't have enough time on it to have those problems surface, but I'm sure they will past mid time on the engine.

[Rick Junkin]

On 5/23/2023 at 12:13 PM, donkaye said:

I bought the GAMIs and got the differential fuel difference down to below 0.3 gallons.  Then I couldn't get the TIT to get to a reasonable temperature at any combination of LOP power settings.  Instead of going down LOP, it would go up.

@donkaye I think I'm misunderstanding what you've stated here. 

Are you saying that the TIT never reached a peak? And TIT continued to increase as you leaned further? What were you referencing to determine you were LOP? About what power settings were you using?

Sorry for all the questions, I want to understand what was happening in your scenario for my own education.

Cheers,
Rick

 

[Horis]

9 hours ago, rbp said:

let me rephrase the question: how is it possible to do a 5.5 hour trip in a factory Bravo (standard tanks) operated at 75% power not contrary to the POH (ie. ROP no LOP)

I have Monroy long range tanks.  I guess I forgot to mention that. Sorry

[Horis]

22 hours ago, rbp said:

I burn 18 gallons per hour. I’m not sure how you do this.

Long range tanks

[Horis]

22 hours ago, rbp said:

I burn 18 gallons per hour. I’m not sure how you do this.

Long range tanks and 55 knot tailwind

[ilovecornfields]

16 hours ago, Horis said:

Long range tanks and 55 knot tailwind

Do the Ovations come with a 55 knot tailwind as well or is that just the Bravos? I’m trying to decide if I made the wrong choice.