Bravo for a Mirage?

[drstephensugiono]

Want 2 more seats!

[thinwing]

6 seats?...get a Baron,..kpc

[aviatoreb]

Quote: thinwing

6 seats?...get a Baron,..kpc

[johnggreen]

I too would love to own a Mirage, but before you get too excited:

The latest data I have from Conklin & de Decker is from 2006.  At that time, based on $3.91 fuel, the variable hourly cost of flying a Bravo was $146/hr., the Mirage was $216.  I don't have the number on the P-Baron, but it would be slightly more than the Cessna 414 which was $370/hr. 

These numbers do not include fixed cost or depreciation.

That Bravo keeps looking better and better.

Jgreen

[M016576]

B36TC.  I know, heresy around here, but if you need 6 seats, either that or a turbo lance would also be good choices (in addition to the meridian/mirage/matrix)

[johnggreen]

I spend a lot of time on the Beech site.  It has over 15,000 members and lots of participation by people in the industry including lots of engine rebuilders.  I have owned a Bonanza, but never a turbo version, but here is the consensus that I see from the Beech forum.

The B-36 TC from the factory is not a desireable engine set up.  Engine temps are a huge limiting factor to the use of the airplane over 12,000' and engine reliability is pretty weak from cylinder problems, i.e. HEAT.

On the other hand.  A turbonormalized 520 or 550 is a good airplane that will give good performance numbers and the same reliability of the NA version.   The ideal conversion is the B-36 to a 550 and turbonormalizing because the B-36 has longer wings and higher fuel capacity.

Lots of owners are buying new or almost new G-36 Bonanzas and having turbo-normalizing put on with tip tanks for additional fuel capacity.  If I were selling my Bravo for another single engine airplane, that is about the only one that would be in consideration.  Today, that set-up with a new G-36 would probably go over $700,000.

Rob, I don't mean to insult you, but you have obviously never flown a turbo Lance.  They are truly one of the sorriest airplanes ever built.  They burn fuel prodigiously and go nowhere.  I flew one new from the factory back in the day and almost laughed in the salesman's face that he thought I would be stupid enough to buy one.  If i'm not mistaken, they were only built for a couple of years even in the heyday of GA.  There was good reason!!

Jgreen

[M016576]

Quote: johnggreen

I spend a lot of time on the Beech site.  It has over 15,000 members and lots of participation by people in the industry including lots of engine rebuilders.  I have owned a Bonanza, but never a turbo version, but here is the consensus that I see from the Beech forum.

The B-36 TC from the factory is not a desireable engine set up.  Engine temps are a huge limiting factor to the use of the airplane over 12,000' and engine reliability is pretty weak from cylinder problems, i.e. HEAT.

On the other hand.  A turbonormalized 520 or 550 is a good airplane that will give good performance numbers and the same reliability of the NA version.   The ideal conversion is the B-36 to a 550 and turbonormalizing because the B-36 has longer wings and higher fuel capacity.

Lots of owners are buying new or almost new G-36 Bonanzas and having turbo-normalizing put on with tip tanks for additional fuel capacity.  If I were selling my Bravo for another single engine airplane, that is about the only one that would be in consideration.  Today, that set-up with a new G-36 would probably go over $700,000.

Rob, I don't mean to insult you, but you have obviously never flown a turbo Lance.  They are truly one of the sorriest airplanes ever built.  They burn fuel prodigiously and go nowhere.  I flew one new from the factory back in the day and almost laughed in the salesman's face that he thought I would be stupid enough to buy one.  If i'm not mistaken, they were only built for a couple of years even in the heyday of GA.  There was good reason!!

Jgreen

[KSMooniac]

I concur with John's assessment on the TN-A36 as modified by Tornado Alley Turbos.  My eyes were really opened during the APS course I took there when I got to see the installations, and learn all about the operational advantages.  There is a lot of evidence from members posting on the AOPA Forum (and of course Beech Talk) as well.  If you're willing to "roll your own" it seems the best option is to get a solid mid-70's airframe that is still relatively light, and then upgrade with the tip tank STC, and then the TAT TN-IO-550 STC.  You'll end up with a plane capable of carrying 1600-ish lbs and cruise ~ 190 KTAS at 17,500 on 17.5 GPH.  That is one tremendous airplane!  TKS is also a possibility if you wish.  Later models got fat (like all modern planes) so doing the same mods to a G36 will leave you with less useful load.

The holy grail would be taking the B36TC airframe (longer wing optimized for high altitude cruise) and replacing the firewall-forward installation with the TAT STC as the factory installation is reportedly terrible.  Just today I read an account of a new owner with a B36TC having to reduce his climb rate down to the 200 FPM range to keep his CHT's below 400!  That is awful.  

Like Job, the J suits me perfectly right now, and to get anything that would carry substantially more payload at the same speed and/or go measurably faster on a 2-3 hour trip would require an acquisition and operational budget of 2x my J!  Sure, I'd love to have something bigger and faster, but since I write the checks I can't think of a better bird for me than a J, except maybe a turbo-normalized J.  ;-)

[johnggreen]

Job and Scott,

A little off the thread of Bravo for a Mirage, but I'll have to comment about your comfort factors with the "J".

You're right.  In a similar sense, I am in a comfort zone with the Bravo.  I don't want to bring out another mule, kill it, and then beat it to death, but for all the reasons that general aviation is in the dumps, it is a good time to err on the side of caution.  Human beings have a real problem in clearly defining the line between "I need" and "I want".  Truth is, I don't "need" a Bravo, but it certainly makes my life more interesting and my travels more pleasant.

Right now, with all the threats on the value and use of our airplanes, a Mooney is a good choice and a J is a great choice.  I recently read a statement that "humans are programmed to want, not appreciate".  I guess a part of wisdom is overcoming that trait.

Eighteem months from now, I may decide that "I want" something other than a Bravo, but right now, I'm just going to "appreciate".

Jgreen 

[KSMooniac]

John, I agree 100% with your sentiment.  I certainly don't "need" a plane either, but it makes my life richer as well as offering some potential professional opportunities in a peripheral fashion to me as an engineer in the aircraft industry.  I feel fortunate to have the plane I do, but like you (and all pilots) I'm always dreaming and shopping for other planes.  At the end of the day, though, I know that the J suits my mission but more importantly my budget.  I think you came to the same conclusion after your upgrade debates earlier this year and led you to appreciate the Bravo even more.

If I hit the lottery, sure, I'd probably by more planes but likely not replace the J.  ;-)  If I had another step-change in income I might consider trading up, but even then I'm not sure anything would tempt me enough to change.  I'm sure I'd be happy with a Bravo, Ovation, Acclaim, Rocket...but not if I couldn't carry 4 adults 500 NM for a weekend trip.  I'm not sure all of the big-engine Mooneys can do that, so I keep telling myself my J is at a real sweet spot in terms of capability and budget.

[fantom]

I concur that after looking at lots of other GA planes over many years my J is all I need or want. Ten years ago it might have been an Encore, but Net Jets was so much easier. Several times a year a TN A-36 would come in handy, but no big deal.

That lotto payout would have to be quite large to move up to what I would have more fun with, and I'd probably be just as satisfied adding lots of expensive toys to my J.

When is that turbo normalizer for the IO-360 going to be available?

As Sheryl Crow sang, "It's not having what you want, it's wanting what you've got". A key to happiness IMO, as is carefully determining what it is you really need.