Acclaim-Bravo

[Mcstealth]

Is the Acclaim as 'capable' as the Bravo? I know the Acclaim is faster but, it seems that the utility of the Bravo is fairly exeptional.

Subjective question I guess but would love opinions.

David

[johnggreen]

In a word, "yes".  In another word, they are in "capability" about the same airplane.

I own a Bravo and when the Acclaim came out, thought about trading.  The Acclaim is cleaned up somewhat, but primarily, it got the Continental engine with more horsepower and the Acclaim S, with even more.

Another fellow based at my field owned an Acclaim for about a year and it would seem that he was about 5 knots faster.  Now, I've got a fast Bravo and his Acclaim is/was a little on the slow side.

Same room, same useful load.  I just couldn't see shoveling out another three or four hundred grand for a few knots and a glass panel.

Hearsay would indicate that the blazing speeds come at the price of high horsepower settings and it seems that there are some engine penalties coming as a result.  I'm sure there are some Acclaim owners who can give us all much better and more accurate information.

Personally, that's personally, I much prefer the Lycoming engine.  There is hardly a Continental made that will make it even half way to TBO without a top overhaul.  The guys on the Beechtalk forum just expect six new cylinders on their Bonanzas at 800 to a 1000 hours to be standard operating procedure.

If the Acclaim and Bravo were sitting side by side and I could fly away in one without looking back would I chose the Acclaim?

Of course.  You can never have too much speed and the Continental properly handled is still a damn good engine.

All my opinion of course and that isn't worth too much.

Jgreen

[Parker_Woodruff]

Opposite of John, I prefer the TSIO-550, purely because it's most likely to run LOP. I just cannot see myself flying an airplane that won't go LOP, unless it's a fun tailwheel airplane or seaplane where cross country mileage isn't the goal. 

 

I needed to go far and fast, so I didn't buy a Cessna 180/2/5 on amphibs.

[KSMooniac]

Are the Brand B -550 operators still routinely changing jugs in that 800-1000 hr time frame?  It was my understanding that after a lot of research and head scratching that the GAMI/APS/TAT folks in conjunction with lots of Brand B owners deduced that the cylinders were failing due to manufacturing/assembly short-cuts at the TCM factory that resulted in non-concentric valve installations, which led to poor geometrical fit and uneven heat transfer through the valves.  The change occurred in the late 90s, and was supposedly corrected at some point in the middle of the last decade.  I even heard that GAMI's standard practice was (maybe still is) to disassemble every new TCM jug to check and/or re-do the valve installations before running it.  That cures the problem, but with additional expense.

I don't know if there are aftermarket jugs for those engines or not, and if they were any better at making a full TBO run.

[johnggreen]

Scott,

I am NOT THE AUTHORITY on the Continental jug issue.  I spend a lot of time on the Beech site, probably more than here and frankly, I can't see that much difference in the conversation about top overhauls between the 520 and 550, but maybe I am missing something.

I'll pose the question.  The Beech site has a huge registry and lots of people from the maintenance side including all the guys from Advanced Pilot Seminars, the gurus of LOP.

As to the LOP issue, there are lots of Lycoming owners who use it too.  It has frankly (it appears) been a god-save for the continental owners.  I have GAMIs on my TIO-540 and it will run LOP, but in the case of the Bravo engine, it is simply not worth the trouble.  The loss of power and speed pretty much offsets any gain in reduced fuel burn.  I get 185 knots on 14 gph at gross and never see CHT's over 320-340, so why bother?

The day another one or two miles per gallon is a big deal, I'll quit flying.

Jgreen

 

[johnggreen]

Scott,

Man, that didn't take long.  I posed the question on the Beechtalk site and got immediate responses from several guys with lots of experience including Charles Melot of Zephyr Aircraft Engines.

The absolute consensus, no difference in cylinder issues between the 520 and 550.   In fact, it seems that the engines utilize the identical cylinders!

One respondent used the ratio of 8 out of 10 Continentals having cylinder issues before reaching TBO.  Nobody disagreed.  From my reading on that site, it is just assumed that you replace cylinders at mid-time and no big deal.

Now, understand, I don't care.  If I were shopping for another airplane, whether it had Continentals or Lycomings would be of such insignificance that it would not be in the equation.  Still, I prefer Lycomings.

Jgreen 

[stevesm20b]

I have owned a number of Cessnas from a 182, 210, 310 and a 421. All had Continental engines and none of them ever made it to TBO without having cylinders replaced. It didn't seem to matter if they where run hard or easy, or how often the oil was changed. They all had cylinder problems before reaching TBO. The Lycoming engines seem to have a better reputation for making it to TBO without having cylinder problems. I know a lot of people with different kinds of planes, running Lycoming engines that run them past TBO and never have problems with cylinders. Camshaft problems in Lycoming engines, now that's another story!!!

[KSMooniac]

Thanks for the info... I should have included the 520 jugs in my post b/c I did know they were the same ones.  I was just curious about the latest consensus on the root cause of the cylinder problems, and if indeed they were (or still are!) isolated to the TCM quality control and cost-cutting procedures.  Much like Lycoming outsourcing parts that led to ADs/recalls, TCM let the bean counters run amok and remove critical steps in the assembly line that led to premature cylinder failure.  At least that was my understanding from the APS course I took in 2007.  I thought that the APS/GAMI guys were "fixing" their brand-new cylinders by re-doing the valves before installation, and then routinely getting full TBO runs out of them.  I was just wondering if that is still the case or not...

[aviatoreb]

Quote: KSMooniac

Thanks for the info... I should have included the 520 jugs in my post b/c I did know they were the same ones.  I was just curious about the latest consensus on the root cause of the cylinder problems, and if indeed they were (or still are!) isolated to the TCM quality control and cost-cutting procedures.  Much like Lycoming outsourcing parts that led to ADs/recalls, TCM let the bean counters run amok and remove critical steps in the assembly line that led to premature cylinder failure.  At least that was my understanding from the APS course I took in 2007.  I thought that the APS/GAMI guys were "fixing" their brand-new cylinders by re-doing the valves before installation, and then routinely getting full TBO runs out of them.  I was just wondering if that is still the case or not...

[aviatoreb]

Quote: KSMooniac

Thanks for the info... I should have included the 520 jugs in my post b/c I did know they were the same ones.  I was just curious about the latest consensus on the root cause of the cylinder problems, and if indeed they were (or still are!) isolated to the TCM quality control and cost-cutting procedures.  Much like Lycoming outsourcing parts that led to ADs/recalls, TCM let the bean counters run amok and remove critical steps in the assembly line that led to premature cylinder failure.  At least that was my understanding from the APS course I took in 2007.  I thought that the APS/GAMI guys were "fixing" their brand-new cylinders by re-doing the valves before installation, and then routinely getting full TBO runs out of them.  I was just wondering if that is still the case or not...

[KSMooniac]

I believe it started in the mid- to late-90's and ran through the early part of the last decade.  That is why I'm curious if there are still active problems with the newest engines, or if we just continue to see a steady stream of engines of that era reach 800-1000 hrs over the last several years.  Without knowing specifics about *when* the engine (or cylinders) were made, it is hard to nail down the real problem.  My own opinion is that it is (or shouldn't be) a generalization that ALL TCM engines need cylinders half way to TBO, but I could be wrong...this is all just observation on my part since I'm a Lycoming owner.

It would be quite an experiment to try to correlate premature cylinder failure since you need to check for manufacturing & installation issues as well as engine management practices by thousands of pilots, as well as regular use vs. sitting for extended periods.  The APS folks were pretty sure the root cause was the manufacturing issues, though, as they stated that ROP and LOP operators still needed cylinder work in the 800-1000 hr range.

[aviatoreb]

Quote: KSMooniac

I believe it started in the mid- to late-90's and ran through the early part of the last decade.  That is why I'm curious if there are still active problems with the newest engines, or if we just continue to see a steady stream of engines of that era reach 800-1000 hrs over the last several years.  Without knowing specifics about *when* the engine (or cylinders) were made, it is hard to nail down the real problem.  My own opinion is that it is (or shouldn't be) a generalization that ALL TCM engines need cylinders half way to TBO, but I could be wrong...this is all just observation on my part since I'm a Lycoming owner.

It would be quite an experiment to try to correlate premature cylinder failure since you need to check for manufacturing & installation issues as well as engine management practices by thousands of pilots, as well as regular use vs. sitting for extended periods.  The APS folks were pretty sure the root cause was the manufacturing issues, though, as they stated that ROP and LOP operators still needed cylinder work in the 800-1000 hr range.

[KSMooniac]

To clarify a bit... my understand from the APS seminar in 2007 was that the 800-1000 hour lifespan of jugs was entirely due to the manufacturing issues, as they seemed to have enough evidence from all over (their own planes, customers, perhaps others anecdotally) that LOP operations (like they teach) and ROP operations (like RAM recommends) both had cylinders fail in that time frame, so their point was *if* the valves weren't installed well, then it doesn't matter what you do with the red knob (within reason of course) related to these early failures.  APS of course recommends LOP ops as a cleaner and more efficient mode of operation that minimizes the heat and internal pressures on the cylinder, which is conducive to a long life...assuming the valves are installed correctly!

If I were you, I would either get a borescope or find a friendly mechanic with one and check your valves at least every annual, if not during oil changes throughout the year.  Mike Busch has a great webinar (I can't remember which one specifically...) that talked all about valve failures complete with pics of good and bad wear/heat patterns that are visible with a borescope.  You can easily check your valves and detect these patterns well in advance of a catastrophic failure, and better plan your maintenance action on your terms instead of breaking a valve somewhere on the road and leaving you stranded and at the mercy of some unfamiliar mechanic.

[aviatoreb]

Quote: KSMooniac

To clarify a bit... my understand from the APS seminar in 2007 was that the 800-1000 hour lifespan of jugs was entirely due to the manufacturing issues, as they seemed to have enough evidence from all over (their own planes, customers, perhaps others anecdotally) that LOP operations (like they teach) and ROP operations (like RAM recommends) both had cylinders fail in that time frame, so their point was *if* the valves weren't installed well, then it doesn't matter what you do with the red knob (within reason of course) related to these early failures.  APS of course recommends LOP ops as a cleaner and more efficient mode of operation that minimizes the heat and internal pressures on the cylinder, which is conducive to a long life...assuming the valves are installed correctly!

If I were you, I would either get a borescope or find a friendly mechanic with one and check your valves at least every annual, if not during oil changes throughout the year.  Mike Busch has a great webinar (I can't remember which one specifically...) that talked all about valve failures complete with pics of good and bad wear/heat patterns that are visible with a borescope.  You can easily check your valves and detect these patterns well in advance of a catastrophic failure, and better plan your maintenance action on your terms instead of breaking a valve somewhere on the road and leaving you stranded and at the mercy of some unfamiliar mechanic.

[johnggreen]

Aviatoreb,

Join up on the Beechtalk site and do a search.  I assure you, there is all the technical information you can ever digest there from lots and lots of pilots with lots and lots of experience with the Continental Cylinder issue.  Most of the highly respected engine shops and gurus such as the guys with Advanced Pilot Seminars are sponsors and contribute regularly.

It is a very professional blog that requires pilot's full names and identifications and they don't put up with any E-net thugs, but they are extremely nice, courteous, professional and helpful even if you own a Mooney.

Jgreen

[aviatoreb]

Quote: johnggreen

Aviatoreb,

Join up on the Beechtalk site and do a search.  I assure you, there is all the technical information you can ever digest there from lots and lots of pilots with lots and lots of experience with the Continental Cylinder issue.  Most of the highly respected engine shops and gurus such as the guys with Advanced Pilot Seminars are sponsors and contribute regularly.

It is a very professional blog that requires pilot's full names and identifications and they don't put up with any E-net thugs, but they are extremely nice, courteous, professional and helpful even if you own a Mooney.

Jgreen

[johnggreen]

Nice to meet you Erik,

The Beech guys, Continental drivers, look at it this way.  The Continental is overall cheaper to overhaul than a Lyc.  The cylinder problems, in the vast majority of cases, show themselves slowly and without any catastrophic failure. (I have personally seen an older Skylane that didn't have one compression over 50 and flew fine.)

So, they start out with a cheaper to rebuild engine and then the repalcement of cylinders at say 800 hours is not an overwhelming expense, so what the heck.  They fly them and top them and live happily ever after.

Jgreen

[John Pleisse]

The ECI and TCM cylinder mess ended a few years ago... probably far fewer out there. I would take the Bravo first. I prefer Lyc's. $64k for a fac reman? If you could deal a seller down, enough....sure.