Maintenance costs on Bravos

[Hank]

@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!

[dkkim73]

24 minutes ago, Hank said:

@andrewniesen

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.

Same thought crossed my mind... if you're planning on a non-turbo retract anyway. 
If you're really agnostic to the model and looking at #s, you might consider letting it be driven by the quality of the specific airplanes you find. That would make your search more complex, though. And those models mentioned above would be pretty agile and sporty vs. an Archer. 

Heck, you could look for a Cardinal RG and get a lot of IFR chops in that for little fuel. 

D

 

[Schllc]

4 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

 

This chart is a reflection of Mooney published top speed. 
if one were to compare all of these the way people fly them in the real world, that spread would be a LOT closer together. Especially the top and bottom ends. 

[Fly Boomer]

20 minutes ago, Schllc said:

This chart is a reflection of Mooney published top speed. 
if one were to compare all of these the way people fly them in the real world, that spread would be a LOT closer together. Especially the top and bottom ends. 

I don't know where the data or the chart came from, but you can deduce some things that may or may not be expected:

1. Turbos go faster than non-turbos
2. Turbos go higher than non-turbos
3. Big-bore engines go faster than smaller engines
4. Big-bore TCM appears to go faster than big-bore Lyc
5. Except for the Rocket, a late-model Mooney will go faster than an older model

[Red Leader]

A lot of information presented here and all with good reason. What hasn't been brought up is why you want such a performance machine as your first plane? As mentioned previously, insurance is a large chunk of cost when operating any aircraft. Starting out with a big-bore Mooney might not be the best idea for a newbie (no offence). My last plane was a Grumman and I miss it SOOOOOO much! The handling was nimble, like nothing else - it felt like a go-kart for the sky. In comparison, my Turbo Mooney is faster but handles like a '70's pick-up truck. 

Many are talking maintenance - my smaller Grumman was relatively inexpensive (as airplane go) and performance was adequate. Insurance was less because of the fixed gear but my retractable gear Mooney is worth the extra expense. Realistically, it all boils down to mission. It was asked, though I didn't see an answer, what your mission will be. With that big picture in mind, that should be your determining factor for deciding which way to go. If you want speed above all else, and there is a lot to consider, the Bravo or Rocket will be a good choice. 

My recommendation is that you make a more reasonable choice before trying to buy the performance beast that some of our aircraft can be. Get time in a Grumman, then perhaps a Commanche - your experience and insurance premiums will thank you when later you decide to go Mooney. 

[hammdo]

A C/E are pretty good XCountry machines, and excellent way to get started in a Mooney. Won’t say don’t get a Bravo if things line up for you and costs are not an issue. I’ve found my C to be a reasonable cost to fun ratio for sure…

-Don

[Schllc]

42 minutes ago, Red Leader said:

A lot of information presented here and all with good reason. What hasn't been brought up is why you want such a performance machine as your first plane? As mentioned previously, insurance is a large chunk of cost when operating any aircraft. Starting out with a big-bore Mooney might not be the best idea for a newbie (no offence). My last plane was a Grumman and I miss it SOOOOOO much! The handling was nimble, like nothing else - it felt like a go-kart for the sky. In comparison, my Turbo Mooney is faster but handles like a '70's pick-up truck. 

Many are talking maintenance - my smaller Grumman was relatively inexpensive (as airplane go) and performance was adequate. Insurance was less because of the fixed gear but my retractable gear Mooney is worth the extra expense. Realistically, it all boils down to mission. It was asked, though I didn't see an answer, what your mission will be. With that big picture in mind, that should be your determining factor for deciding which way to go. If you want speed above all else, and there is a lot to consider, the Bravo or Rocket will be a good choice. 

My recommendation is that you make a more reasonable choice before trying to buy the performance beast that some of our aircraft can be. Get time in a Grumman, then perhaps a Commanche - your experience and insurance premiums will thank you when later you decide to go Mooney. 

As everyone says it’s got more to do with mission than anything else. 
the challenge is really understanding what the actual mission will be, vs the one you imagine it will be. 

my actual mission was 600ish miles.  I let hangar talk and anecdotal chatter convince me not to get an acclaim, so I got an ovation with about 14 hours total time and finished my ppl and IR in that plane. My first year insurance was about 3k more than it was the following year. It was probably 50/50 time in model and my IR. 
I do not regret it, and it was absolutely the right choice for me. 
3k extra is a rounding error in aviation. Extra money for insurance is not a reason to avoid the plane you want. 
I would say if you can’t fly at least once a week when you are learning, a Mooney will greatly extend your training time, because it will take you longer to become comfortable. 
in my case I was doing instrument training anyway, so it really didn’t cost me anything extra, but I flew several times a week for almost a year, and I believe a high performance plane will require this kind of commitment for a newbie. 
 

[Pinecone]

20 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

I don't know where the data or the chart came from, but you can deduce some things that may or may not be expected:

1. Turbos go faster than non-turbos
2. Turbos go higher than non-turbos
3. Big-bore engines go faster than smaller engines
4. Big-bore TCM appears to go faster than big-bore Lyc
5. Except for the Rocket, a late-model Mooney will go faster than an older model

And Big Bores burn more fuel than the small bores.  Much more than the speed increase

[Fly Boomer]

1 hour ago, Pinecone said:

And Big Bores burn more fuel than the small bores.  Much more than the speed increase

It's true.  A huge increase in horsepower, with the accompanying huge increase in burn, only yields incremental increases in speed.  But still ...

[Kerrville]

310 is on your list. The 310 is by far the sweetest GA aircraft that I have flown, if you are looking to go places. I have a Mooney, but if money were not a factor, I would own a 310. 

[exM20K]

On 5/9/2024 at 6:08 PM, andrewniesen said:

You're reinforcing my inclination to buy a simpler aircraft to build some hours...thanks for the insight

@andrewniesen This may not be a terrible idea, with one financial caveat.

First, my costs in the acclaim track what @donkaye and @Rick Junkin posted, but then there’s the odd annual like this year (2 turbos at hartzell’s “improved” (for them) pricing), mags, harnesses, recent prop o/h, $1000 battery, etc.  These events will come along whatever you buy.

I started in an archer partnership and bought a Cherokee 140 to do my instruments. For me, it was a good choice, and 30-some years later, my only regret is that the DA40 wasn’t yet a thing.  My first X00 hours were learning about aircraft ownership, aviation decision making, and of course instruments.  Like you, I was in a complex airspace (KTEB), and things just happen slower in a Cherokee.

If I were again in your shoes now, knowing what I know now, I’d buy a DA40, which is a delight to fly, fast enough, simple, reliable, and modern.

But here’s the caveat: trainers are stupid expensive. 2008-2012 DA40XLS aircraft are transacting at or above what they sold for new.  Moonies, not so much. The only nit that I’d pick with Rick’s cost spreadsheet is that it doesn’t account for cost of money, which is obviously significantly more today than 3+ years ago. And insurance premiums scale with hull value.

Of course, you’re not getting into flying to save money, but rather, I hope, to improve your life.  I’d get a DA40, fly the heck out of it, decide if this flying thing is really for me. Then up or out is easy with an easy-to-sell plane. 
 

Good luck. It’s been a rewarding journey for me and mine.

-dan

[Pinecone]

16 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

It's true.  A huge increase in horsepower, with the accompanying huge increase in burn, only yields incremental increases in speed.  But still ...

I am sure they are nice for take off and climb.  But I love my 175 KTAS at 10.1 GPH.

 

[LANCECASPER]

16 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

It's true.  A huge increase in horsepower, with the accompanying huge increase in burn, only yields incremental increases in speed.  But still ...

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.

[FAST FLIGHT OPTIONS LLC]

I have owned my 2004 Bravo for almost 4 years now.  It is without a doubt my "forever" plane.  My expenses are almost exactly $3,000.00 per month.

[Jetpilot86]

Definitely share your mission and we can narrow things down for you.

I was in your place over the last few years as I decided if/how I was going to jump back into GA as I wind down the Airline pilot gig.  While I have 5 figure TT, I might as well have been a 100 hr PP when I picked up my Bravo in November.  Because of my TT, I was able to get myself back up to speed relatively quickly, but in hindsight, I wish I'd grabbed a 182 or such 4-5 years ago to jump back in to GA with, vs the Bravo, and I love my Bravo.  I'm not going to say it's not doable as a low time pilot, but for the first few hundred hours or so in a K model and up, bring your A game every flight or we're more likely to read unpleasant stories about you.  As it is, one of the turbo Mooney's I considered since last summer, has already become a fatality, along with it's owner.  Humbling....

I looked hard at T310Q's and Turbo-R's and very nearly pulled the trigger on one, but just didn't like the numbers on the ones I'd seen.  From what I have seen the 310's are basically "Twin-Mooney's."  There are a few missions where I'll wish I had one, but 75% of the time the Bravo is perfect for what I do with her.  I've got both long range and Rocky Mountain missions so for me, a Turbo was a requirement.  Depending on where operating expenses fit into the parameters, if you are not running 500+ miles per flight, or have a high altitude mission, a J or less will do quite nicely.  Unless you are getting to the upper teens on a regular basis, all a Bravo is, is a J model that burns double the gas at the J altitudes for the same speed.  It's in the teens, especially the upper teens where the TAS difference you get for the same fuel burn brings the Bravo into her own.

Good luck, lots of info here and in the Bravo specific section.  Pay close attention to the engine discussions on the Bravo, operating by the POH can quickly become an expensive proposition.

[andrewniesen]

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

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.

I've been so fixated on a Bravo that I didn't really think about an older short-body model. I'm in the mindset now that perhaps a Grumman Tiger is the place to start and then trade up to a Mooney later, but maybe one of these Mooney models is the place to start instead.

On 5/10/2024 at 8:18 PM, Red Leader said:

Realistically, it all boils down to mission. It was asked, though I didn't see an answer, what your mission will be.

Mission is basically regional XC. I live in Atlanta but run a company based in Wilmington DE, so I fly between ATL and PHL frequently. I'm constantly booking and rebooking flights on commercial carriers (DL and AA) and am getting tired of the limitations and logistics involved. So flexibility is part of the mission, traveling solo for work. I would probably fly between KPDK (or KFTY) and KILG if I flew myself.

I also have an 8-year-old only child, and I want to make sure that he sees more of his grandparents and cousins, who live near KCPS (St. Louis), 43PA (Philly area) and KTOA (Los Angeles). The KTOA trip might be more of a commitment than my wife and son are willing to do. 

These distances make a faster single engine piston attractive, and winter weather makes features like TKS a nice to have. Although I may be getting ahead of myself considering FIKI.

On 5/13/2024 at 5:22 AM, Jetpilot86 said:

Bring your A game every flight or we're more likely to read unpleasant stories about you. 

This is an interesting comment and I'm curious if you could explain a little more about what you mean by it. I know these aircraft are fast, making it easier to "get behind the airplane" but is there more to it than that? And this may be naïve but why not just slow down during critical phases of flight? I'm aware that there is a lot more to do when flying complex airplanes than I'm accustomed to in a Skyhawk or Archer...

On 5/12/2024 at 8:35 AM, exM20K said:

I’d buy a DA40, which is a delight to fly, fast enough, simple, reliable, and modern.

But here’s the caveat: trainers are stupid expensive.

My CFI did his multi-engine training in a DA-42 and loved it - fully FADEC and he said it handles like a dream. I would love to buy a DA-40 but for the expense I would want/hope for a few extra knots. It's not much cheaper than a Cirrus 

Finally someone mentioned that the Bravo handles like a 1970s pickup truck. Curious what people think about this. I read Bonanza owners talking about how well their aircraft handle - wondering if there is any truth to it.

[Fly Boomer]

1 minute ago, andrewniesen said:

I've been so fixated on a Bravo that I didn't really think about an older short-body model.

If you want short body, you will have to shorten your list to C, D, E.

[Jetpilot86]

2 hours ago, andrewniesen said:

I've been so fixated on a Bravo that I didn't really think about an older short-body model. I'm in the mindset now that perhaps a Grumman Tiger is the place to start and then trade up to a Mooney later, but maybe one of these Mooney models is the place to start instead.

Mission is basically regional XC. I live in Atlanta but run a company based in Wilmington DE, so I fly between ATL and PHL frequently. I'm constantly booking and rebooking flights on commercial carriers (DL and AA) and am getting tired of the limitations and logistics involved. So flexibility is part of the mission, traveling solo for work. I would probably fly between KPDK (or KFTY) and KILG if I flew myself.

I also have an 8-year-old only child, and I want to make sure that he sees more of his grandparents and cousins, who live near KCPS (St. Louis), 43PA (Philly area) and KTOA (Los Angeles). The KTOA trip might be more of a commitment than my wife and son are willing to do. 

These distances make a faster single engine piston attractive, and winter weather makes features like TKS a nice to have. Although I may be getting ahead of myself considering FIKI.

This is an interesting comment and I'm curious if you could explain a little more about what you mean by it. I know these aircraft are fast, making it easier to "get behind the airplane" but is there more to it than that? And this may be naïve but why not just slow down during critical phases of flight? I'm aware that there is a lot more to do when flying complex airplanes than I'm accustomed to in a Skyhawk or Archer...

My CFI did his multi-engine training in a DA-42 and loved it - fully FADEC and he said it handles like a dream. I would love to buy a DA-40 but for the expense I would want/hope for a few extra knots. It's not much cheaper than a Cirrus 

Finally someone mentioned that the Bravo handles like a 1970s pickup truck. Curious what people think about this. I read Bonanza owners talking about how well their aircraft handle - wondering if there is any truth to it.

Re: My comment.  No, other than being very slick airplanes compared to the candy bar wings of the Cessna's and Pipers you are in now, there are not any issues.  But what you won't comprehend until you fly a Mooney is just how clean, fast, and non-draggy they are compared to those Cessna's and Pipers.  In a Cessna, I never flew much Piper, high and hot, slip; not in a Mooney.  5k fast over the threshold in a Cessna, sloppy, but 95% of the time it doesn't matter.  Do that in the Mooney and Runway will get chewed up at an alarming rate while you float along at 2 feet in ground effect.  Get impatient and try to force it on?  A pricey prop strike may be in your new maintenance budget.  I do "slow" down earlier still to make sure I don't get behind, but I'm speeding back up every chance I get.  You aren't buying this plane to go slow, just understand what you have to prep for to get the most of of her.

I'm not trying to dissuade you, but until you make a few approaches in a Mooney, the longer the body, the worse it is, you simply cannot appreciate how precise you need to be on the approach, particularly speeds, to get the same results landing, as the other trainers.  Mooney's in general, the Turbo's and especially the Bravo's in particular, are Thoroughbred's compared to the plow horse trainers, and have to be treated as such.  Think Corvette vs Minivan.  While new back to GA, I've got a ton of TT from my airline gig, and I have to fly my Mooney as precise as I'm trained to fly the Jet.  Master the Mooney and I'm convinced you can transition to anything.  It's all about the discipline, just another level than the trainers.  I'm sure there are other HP singles, like the Cirrus, that are likely similar.  If fast is your goal, it's a different mindset than the trainers.  Not harder per se, not dangerous, but just a higher level of precision.  Experience prior "helps" but is not the end all to make it work, rock solid procedures and airspeed discipline in particular are way more important in the Mooney's than the Cessna's.

HTH.

[andrewniesen]

@jetpilot86 - very helpful ... thanks for that explanation

[Pinecone]

I am in the camp of the ones that say go ahead.  You WILL have a steeper learning curve.  And it WILL take some extra hours with an instructor.  But it CAN be done.

And you will be building time and experience in YOUR airplane.

I love the Tiger.  I did my PP in Tigers.  I started looking at Tigers.  But they were more than a vintage Mooney.  And I looked at where I wanted to by, and bought my last plane (of this class) first.

[Hank]

@Jetpilot86 speaks truth. I've stumbled on a runway hidden behind a ridge in WV, flying the might C172, about 2500 agl at cruise. I pulled throttle, made a right 270 and entered left downwind for a normal landing.

When my Mooney was based adjacent to Class D, they would sometimes keep me at 4500 msl until i passed their runway. That was 4.5 nm from my home field, at 567 msl. To get down, I would deviate east over downtown and do 1-1/2 standard rate 360° turns to lose altitude, then bleed off airspeed for the 3-4 nm back to the pattern. THEN I would make a normal landing. 

Went out for a flight review with one of the instructors, when the wind was unusually out of the east. This meant downwind was behind the parallel ridge lines then choose a gap for base. He wanted me to go through the Cessna gap. As I turned base and pulled throttle to idle, I told him we wouldn't make it, then went full flaps, turned final and slipped until he was also convinced. Went around, and turned base at the next gap beyond the Cessna gap, and made a normal landing over the trees, just beyond the displaced threshold. 

You have to learn the Mooney procedures, learn and fly the right speeds and power settings. I was still very much in Student Pilot mode when I bought mine, them almost immediately attended a MAPA PPP (Pilot Proficiency Program), which I try to gomback to every few years to brush up and get rid of bad habits that sneak in.

Bur it's soooo nice to fly! I go places that friends go in 172s, typically in 25-30% less time while using 10-15% less fuel . . . .    

[dkkim73]

4 hours ago, Jetpilot86 said:

.  But what you won't comprehend until you fly a Mooney is just how clean, fast, and non-draggy they are compared to those Cessna's and Pipers. 

@Jetpilot86 summed up perfectly what I was going to convey in other, less experienced, words. Everything happens faster and balancing short final transitions, cross-winds, etc, without carrying extra energy is a new realm. You can't just "put it" somewhere different in parameter-space quickly like you can a trainer. 

As far as the truck comment further above, the plane is very stable. Positive-feeling. Which is good for IFR. Just feels not as much like a T182, leave alone a Super Decathlon, as you might want at other times. And for IFR, going fast, takes a lot more attention to hand-fly and keep the #s on target (my experience). 

D

(using Acclaim experience as indicative of Bravo handling @donkaye is the Bravo Whisperer)

[Jetpilot86]

5 hours ago, andrewniesen said:

@jetpilot86 - very helpful ... thanks for that explanation

You’re welcome! 
My last comment will be since you are still wrapping up the PPL. The rest of the time you prep, be as exacting as possible, especially on airspeed. If your approach speed is 70k, then it’s 70k, not 72, 75 or 80. That will make the habits “required” to make a safe transition to a Mooney as quick as possible. If I get a bit feisty about this, it’s because one of the 252’s I was evaluating before I bought my Bravo in November, has already crashed with a fatality. Struck a little close to home. 
 

Good luck, have fun!

[Texas Mooney]

Another reason you need to bring your “A game” regardless of whether you buy a Bravo or C or other brand is due to your mission. Peachtree DeKalb to New Castle takes you right across Washington DC. Given the volume of aircraft, the restricted airspace and Class A including Dulles to the west and the weather, this is one of the most controlled corridors in the nation. You really need your IR ticket to play in this neighborhood. Even with your IR and FIKI, I question how reliable your dispatch will be especially in winter.
 

Flying for work purposes can create time demands adding stress. You may need to add an additional day each way for travel. Have you talked to your company about liability? I did it once - the CEO chewed me out and said “Don’t make your liability the Company’s liability”. In 2019 a Baron ran out of fuel, stalled and crashed on an instrument approach to Kerrville TX sadly killing all. The owner and PIC was a wealthy exec of Raymond James. The lawsuits were successfully brought against Raymond James and not the pilot/owners’s estate. 

[dkkim73]

18 hours ago, Hank said:

Bur it's soooo nice to fly! I go places that friends go in 172s, typically in 25-30% less time while using 10-15% less fuel . . . .    

This is worth reiterating, with all the black crepe that we're hanging. I still have to pinch myself sometimes in the plane. Fast, capable, and a real IFR machine.

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.