Maintenance costs on Bravos

[affricate]

I transitioned from a Cessna 172 into a 1989 Mooney M20M Bravo, but I had another 50 hours in the right seat in my friend @John Orcutt Rocket. I also spent many hours with a knowledgeable instructor who trained me appropriately in the Bravo. 

I eased into the plane and gradually increased my cross country flight distance over a year or so. 

I am approaching 700 hours and really enjoy the plane. 

It ain't cheap tho. 

I the last 3 years, I have spent over 125K ++++ on MOH, landing gear actuator, turbo OH, controller OH, etc etc. The list goes on and on. Oil changes/samples every 25 hrs. You name it, I bought it. My insurance hovers around+/- 3800/yr on a 150K hull value. I am not concerned with insuring 200-250K hull values. I'll self insure. That's another reason I like the Mooney M20M.

Additionally, safety is very important to me and I do not mind spending money on deferred maintenance.

Planes are a money pit, but it affords me the ability to travel back and forth to Ohio and Louisiana from Tucson when I want to (weather permitting).

Flying is a challenging, rewarding and fun hobby for me. That's why I love it.

 @donkayeis correct, plan on 40K a year 

[CaptainBen]

Hi all – I'm new to Mooneyspace, and found this info about the Bravo operational costs very interesting and helpful. I'm about to purchase an airplane (my first) and have winnowed down the choices to an Ovation, Encore, or Bravo (T210 is wild card). Curious how the operational costs of the Ovation and Encore compare to the Bravo?

Quick background on me: ~700+ hrs total time w/commercial + instrument, 250 retract, 50 multi, 40 hours in T210, most of my time is in Cessnas & Pipers and I'm new to Mooney. Live in southern CA. Mission is 100+ hours including multiple trips to Denver, Lake Tahoe area, Santa Fe, Austin, up and down the CA coast. I like the capability of the turbo but wonder if the Ovation would do it for me. Thanks for any info!

[Schllc]

That is what I spend with everything included (I fly 200+ hours a year), I mean everything, hangar, subscriptions, insurance, annual, maintenance, fuel etc. 
This is for an acclaim and ovation. The ovation may have been 4-5k less, which was mostly fuel, but this is what I have averaged for 8 years.  
If one were to buy an older or poorly maintained airplane, you could easily double that the first year or two.  
I haven’t owned a bravo, but I can’t imagine that on average, it is any more than an acclaim over the long haul.  
Buy the best maintained, appointed, and regularly flown plane that you can afford.   
I look at the airplane purchase as a savings account that earns no interest. 
As long as you maintain the airplane, and fly it regularly, you will more than likely get everything you paid to buy it, when you sell it. 
The real expense is what it cost to own and fly, the purchase price is something I think many people put inordinately high on the list. 
Im not suggesting everyone has unlimited funds, and if you have to finance it would obviously play into the equation, but buying the great cheap deal can end up costing you a lot more than the plane you thought was too expensive. 
 

[Jetpilot86]

I have a Bravo, and I’m a little under that number, but I’ve been pretty lucky on hangar cost for where I fly. 
Much is dependent on what you start with. I’m the second owner on one that averaged 70 hr/yr and had just been put back together after a gear up landing so it had 10 hours since FOH, 12 on a new prop. After getting a clean bill of health from Maxwell, other than me going off the deep end on paint, interior and molding the panel to my desires, she’s been cheap to operate.  She needed a major paint touch up and the plastic was what you might expect for nearly 30 years old, but still serviceable when I upgraded all of it.
I’m running $225/hr dry so far for ~150 total time, not counting hangars. I flight plan at 15gph so call it another $90/hr for gas. My cosmetic spending spree is not included in that number. 

[NickG]

On 4/5/2025 at 12:27 PM, CaptainBen said:

Hi all – I'm new to Mooneyspace, and found this info about the Bravo operational costs very interesting and helpful. I'm about to purchase an airplane (my first) and have winnowed down the choices to an Ovation, Encore, or Bravo (T210 is wild card). Curious how the operational costs of the Ovation and Encore compare to the Bravo?

Quick background on me: ~700+ hrs total time w/commercial + instrument, 250 retract, 50 multi, 40 hours in T210, most of my time is in Cessnas & Pipers and I'm new to Mooney. Live in southern CA. Mission is 100+ hours including multiple trips to Denver, Lake Tahoe area, Santa Fe, Austin, up and down the CA coast. I like the capability of the turbo but wonder if the Ovation would do it for me. Thanks for any info!

I live in Las Vegas and fly regularly (160 hrs+/yr) to Socal, Nocal, Oregon (KEUG), Houston (KCXO) and Denver (KAPA). My Ovation (310HP) fits the mission perfectly - haven't had a need for a turbo. Just a matter of preference. Maintenance costs are a wildcard depending on the condition of the bird you buy. I average about 12.5 GPH for my flight and financial planning. My average TAS is around 174kts. My wife (the CFO lol) allocates about $65/hr for maintenance allocation (annual and maintenance reserve) and add to that 12.5GPH at around $5.60 per gallon (obviously varies) and that's another $70. So allocate about $135/hr for fuel and maintenance. That's excluding hangar, insurance, and Mooney branded apparel from Sportys (lol). I would guess add about another 10% to the maintenance reserve for a turbo but that's just a guess.

[LANCECASPER]

13 hours ago, Jetpilot86 said:

I have a Bravo, and I’m a little under that number, but I’ve been pretty lucky on hangar cost for where I fly. 
Much is dependent on what you start with. I’m the second owner on one that averaged 70 hr/yr and had just been put back together after a gear up landing so it had 10 hours since FOH, 12 on a new prop. After getting a clean bill of health from Maxwell, other than me going off the deep end on paint, interior and molding the panel to my desires, she’s been cheap to operate.  She needed a major paint touch up and the plastic was what you might expect for nearly 30 years old, but still serviceable when I upgraded all of it.
I’m running $225/hr dry so far for ~150 total time, not counting hangars. I flight plan at 15gph so call it another $90/hr for gas. My cosmetic spending spree is not included in that number. 

What power setting are you running to get 15 gph on a Bravo?

[donkaye]

2 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

What power setting are you running to get 15 gph on a Bravo?

He must either be running LOP or low power settings or has a TIT over 1750°, none of which are the reasons I bought and have owned my M20M for nearly 33 years (Speed).  There's just no way you can run 75% power ROP on 15 gal/hour.

[Jeff Uphoff]

On 5/9/2024 at 9:30 AM, 201Mooniac said:

Since the gear is about the same in all Mooneys I'll say that in the 29 years of owning my M20J I have found the gear maintenance to be barely a blip in my maintenance costs.  I've changed donuts once and a microswitch once.  Other than lubrication, I can't really recall much more costs specific to the retract gear.

I COMPLETELY agree with Adam here. I bought my first Mooney in '99, and I'm on my third one now, having logged some 2000 hours across a '65 M20C, an '83 M20K/231, and now a '00 M20R.

Gear maintenance costs have been next to nonexistent. IIRC, my old Johnson-bar M20C had something like a 100-hour recurring AD for checking the preloads on the manual gear, but that's been about it for gear-specific mx. My M20K and M20R both came with a fresh set of donuts because the seller's hadn't cleared pre-buy, so I've never even had to replace those on my own dime; it's been just regular annual inspections and lubrication for the gear in both those planes.

I've spent FAR more chasing/fixing things like avionics gremlins than I have on gear maintenance.

--Up.

[Jeff Uphoff]

On 5/10/2024 at 3:26 PM, Hank said:

@andrewniesen, I and others here transitioned from trainers to Vintage Mooneys with little trouble (i had 62 hours in C172 when i bought my Mooney). Looking back, a Bravo would have been too much to chew at that time (and maybe even now). But my C rapidly became an extension of my body, and is much more enjoyable than the Cessna . . . .

So that's another option to consider. Get a Mooney--C, D, E, F or J and build time that may well count when you move into a turbo machine.

My insurance fell by 50% when I hit 100 hours in my first year, then another 30% when I finished Instruments. @Parker_Woodruff can provide insight into the current insurance environment. 

Good luck with your search, have fun and fly safe!

I'm glad I did the C -> K -> R progression. Each model has been great for teaching me how to deal with something fundamental and preparing me for the next level:

C: Mooneys in general, owning/flying a retractable.

K: Flying at high altitude, operating a complex engine, and managing energy (my K had no speed brakes).

R: Flying big-bore horsepower (310) and a relatively heavy plane, upgrading to (partial) glass.

Don't know that I'll go another level up from the R--it suits my current mission too perfectly (mostly several-hundred-mile trips east of the Mississippi).

--Up.

[Jeff Uphoff]

On 5/12/2024 at 11:37 AM, LANCECASPER said:

I agree.

Having had both, with a big bore (Continental especially running LOP) you can always dial back to M20K speeds and very close to M20K fuel flows and have very long range. But on the smaller engine you can't dial up to big bore speeds if you want to go faster. It's nice to have the flexibility when fighting a 30 knot headwind and you want to get there sometime today .. lol.

Yup. I've had a 210HP TSIO-360 231 and a 310HP IO-550 Ovation, and pulling back and flying LOP, I can get the Ovation down to around the 231's burn at a similar speed and still fly comfortably in the low/mid teens (where I mostly flew the 231 as well).

But WOW is that extra 100HP nice to have on takeoff and climbout from within this bowl of mountains I'm surrounded by!

--Up.

[Rick Junkin]

14 hours ago, donkaye said:

He must either be running LOP or low power settings or has a TIT over 1750°, none of which are the reasons I bought and have owned my M20M for nearly 33 years (Speed).  There's just no way you can run 75% power ROP on 15 gal/hour.

I'll leave @Jetpilot86 to speak for himself, but yes, we both run our Bravos LOP. I run 30"/2200RPM at 13.2gph, which is 70%. My TIT stays below 1600, typically ~1585, for a nominal 175KTAS in the mid teens. 14.2gph yields 75% and that's about where Bret runs in cruise. I'm sure he'll be by shortly to provide his parameters.

[Jeff Uphoff]

On 5/21/2024 at 1:38 PM, dkkim73 said:

FIKI is worth a lot IMHO though that brings some significant risk management. The density of airspace around DC would scare me, but I'll let people who know weigh in. There are a couple people here who commute significant distances for real into that. 

I spent nearly a year spanning 2023-2024 commuting from KROA into the DC area, using mostly KHEF and KIAD, but occasionally others--KJYO, KGAI, KBWI, and even KCGS, which is inside the "no-fly zone" FRZ.

If you're going around, but not into, the DC area, plan on heading northbound up the east side of the SFRA and southbound down the west side. There are ways to "cheat" and go opposite the flow (to avoid weather, mountains at night, whatever)--my typical one between the NYC area and KCHO was to file KRIC as my destination and KCHO my alternate, which always got me east-side routing, even southbound, and then once I was mostly past DC, I'd ask to "divert" to my alternate. Expect your altitude to be constrained passing south of the SFRA for KDCA traffic and on the west side for KIAD's. The through routes around the SFRA are busy airspace but IMO not crazily so.

Note that even if you're going by (and not into) the DC area, if you're flying VFR within 60nm of the DCA VOR, 91.161 requires you take special training. See https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-B/subject-group-ECFR4d5279ba676bedc/section-91.161. Sites like AOPA and faasafety.gov can steer you to the training.

If you're going into the DC area, bring your A game. Take all the training you can find for the SFRA. (I have a FRZ PIN to go inside the "no-fly zone" to places like KCGS, and that's training and vetting beyond all the rest.) I mostly use KHEF there but have used KIAD ($$) a bunch, too, and it's fun to mix it up with the big iron there--you just fly really fast! (Note: KIAD almost feels cheap, fees-wise, compared to KBWI!) Under no circumstances do I ever fly in/out of the SFRA VFR--I'm an IFR-only guy there.

I've been flying around DC's airspace since the mid-90s and so am pretty used to it. (9/11 messed it up considerably.) Happy to try to answer any specific questions...

--Up.

[cliffy]

310?   Hmmmm-    A really good Piper Twin Comanche?    165-170 kts TAS @   15 GPH total

2 bullet proof IO-320 Lycs  (or the 180 HP STC:-)

Even NA its good to 15,000 easy. Turbos just  make it better (IF a good one can be found)

Easy to work on.  Small enough you don't need a ladder to work on the engines

With tip tanks it'll fly longer than you want anyway. 

NA will hold 9000+ ft on one engine,  climb to 7300 ft  on one. 

[donkaye]

7 hours ago, Rick Junkin said:

I'll leave @Jetpilot86 to speak for himself, but yes, we both run our Bravos LOP. I run 30"/2200RPM at 13.2gph, which is 70%. My TIT stays below 1600, typically ~1585, for a nominal 175KTAS in the mid teens. 14.2gph yields 75% and that's about where Bret runs in cruise. I'm sure he'll be by shortly to provide his parameters.

I have taken the Advanced Pilot Course.  Having tried LOP, I'm not going to run my airplane LOP.  I'm on my 3rd engine and will gladly take the fuel penalty vs the discomfort of the engine "sounding" like it's missing and the speed reduction of running LOP. (I do have the GAMIs with a GAMI spread of about .4)

[Rick Junkin]

2 hours ago, donkaye said:

I have taken the Advanced Pilot Course.  Having tried LOP, I'm not going to run my airplane LOP.  

Ok. So what? 
 

EDIT: I see Don went back and added to his post after I quoted his original post. He can’t get his engine running smoothly LOP. I can.

[donkaye]

10 minutes ago, Rick Junkin said:

Ok. So what? 

It means I do understand LOP and chose not run my engine in that manner.  The Continental Engines do run pretty smoothly LOP and I have a number of my students who do chose to run their engines LOP.   When I'm flying with them I often ask them if it makes more sense to save on the fuel and end up paying a lot more for my time.  They usually move to ROP.

Since I don't like the "feel" of LOP, especially in the Bravo, maybe I ought to increase my rates for LOP students vs ROP students.

[Schllc]

I have the io-540’s in my Aerostar, yes I know they are not the same variant, but it’s more similar than not to the bravo engine. 
All of my time prior to the Aerostar was in mooney’s behind the tsio-550 and it-550. 
The continental engines are designed and built  for LOP ops, and they perform very well.  In my experience, they do not enjoy ROP as much, and the speed loss from LOP is only about 7-8 knots to save 4-6gph. Easy decision for that engine to fly LOP. 
The Aerostar however is much different, while mine will fly LOP smoothly enough to tempt you, the speed loss is huge. It’s about 30knts. 
So when you do the math, and use miles flown divided by the tbo time, vs gas usage difference, it is actually cheaper to fly ROP.  The Lycoming also just seems much happier ROP. 
I looked hard at a few bravos, and have flown quite a few, but none of the ones I have flown felt smooth enough to get comfortable flying LOP.  
To each their own, but I’m convinced the io-540 longevity is going to be better ROP. 

[Rick Junkin]

I know I’m an outlier with a Bravo that runs well LOP. I do run Tempest fine wires and GAMIjectors with a 0.3gph spread, and work at staying on top of the ignition system condition and timing. Running at 2200 RPM also helps with LOP ops and I’m happy with the speeds I get. As was said, to each his own.

For me it isn’t the fuel savings as much as it is the cleaner running and the lower CHTs. The plugs are always clean and the cylinders and valves always look great through the borescope at oil changes. Time will tell on the engine longevity but all indications are good and I’m optimistic. 

[Jetpilot86]

On 4/10/2025 at 5:26 PM, LANCECASPER said:

What power setting are you running to get 15 gph on a Bravo?

31”/2200

[Fritz1]

I am with Don, ROP, 30" 2300, about 18.5 gph, about 78% power, Gamis .3 spread, Tempest fine wires, my engine just does not appear to like LOP, no intake or exhaust leaks, think you can do max 65% power LOP, going higher than 65% temps will go through the limits, semi religious question maybe, smarter people will find good reasons either way

[Jetpilot86]

On 4/10/2025 at 7:33 PM, donkaye said:

He must either be running LOP or low power settings or has a TIT over 1750°, none of which are the reasons I bought and have owned my M20M for nearly 33 years (Speed).  There's just no way you can run 75% power ROP on 15 gal/hour.

You are about 200° high on the turbo temp. 1565° today. I am cheating because it’s a newer, 150 hr turbo, on a 150 hr SFOH for my Key 53 today. I was 25° LoP

 

ETA: 18k, -6°c, 14.8gph, 385° CHT, 1/2 CF

Edited Sunday at 02:23 AM by Jetpilot86

[donkaye]

13 hours ago, Jetpilot86 said:

You are about 200° high on the turbo temp. 1565° today. I am cheating because it’s a newer, 150 hr turbo, on a 150 hr SFOH for my Key 53 today. I was 25° LoP

 

ETA: 18k, -6°c, 14.8gph, 385° CHT, 1/2 CF

Like I said, it had to be one of 3 things and you met one of them, LOP.  As I said, I'm not interested in going slower or doing the things to my engine to try and get it to run LOP.  Also, it's my understanding that Key numbers are only valid for operations ROP.

[Rick Junkin]

On 4/12/2025 at 9:28 PM, Fritz1 said:

I am with Don, ROP, 30" 2300, about 18.5 gph, about 78% power, Gamis .3 spread, Tempest fine wires, my engine just does not appear to like LOP, no intake or exhaust leaks, think you can do max 65% power LOP, going higher than 65% temps will go through the limits, semi religious question maybe, smarter people will find good reasons either way

I am able to run at 70% 35dF LOP as calculated at 13.2gph with all temps well within limits. I've posted this before; unfortunately it's a low altitude example but it shows all the important parameters. CHTs increase modestly at altitude but remain well below 380dF. I can run at 14.2gph / 75% but the TIT goes to about 1610 and I'd rather keep it below that. I accept the 8-10 knot hit on airspeed and cruise at about 175KTAS in the mid - upper teens. Again, it isn't fuel economy I'm looking for, it's cleaner and cooler engine operation.

One of these days I'll remember to grab a screen shot at altitude.

EDIT: Added screen shot of LOP % power spreadsheet.

[Fly Boomer]

5 hours ago, Rick Junkin said:

EDIT: Added screen shot of LOP % power spreadsheet.

Is that the one originally created by Michael Mahoney?

Can you share your version?

Thanks

[Rick Junkin]

3 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

Is that the one originally created by Michael Mahoney?

Can you share your version?

Thanks

Yes, it’s the same spreadsheet, I just did some highlighting with my engine data entered. I think it’s already in he downloads section of this site. If not I can share it with appropriate credit to the original author.