What to buy: Bravo or Acclaim

[Shadrach]

15 hours ago, Schllc said:

That’s a good article.  I guess what I wonder is “what constitutes a problem”?

I will create an example purely to illustrate the point, the values are arbitrary. 
so let’s say continental built 1000 engines and no one really followed the trend until savvy started. but it was something people saw occasionally. 
now it’s being “followed”, and they say it’s happening “more frequently”. 
does this mean they used to see one or two a year and now they are seeing 1 in 4, is it 10%, 30%?  
Without some real data, it sounds more like hangar talk to me. 
That doesn’t mean I’m saying it isn’t true, just that if haven’t seen it in my years, on my planes or anyone I know, it doesn’t get elevated to “problem”.   
Sounds like the same type of chatter I heard about io and tsio-550 cylinders before I started flying them. 
btw, my first ovation which I bought with 900 hours and put close to 700 on when I owned it, is almost to 2400 hours since major overhaul and has only had cylinder work on one cylinder and the owner isn’t planning of overhauling any time soon. 
 

My skepticism primarily comes from my experience with most of the mechanics I’ve encountered.  
They all seem to be all too eager to just change parts without really digging into the root causes. Perhaps savvy will save all this data and in a few years have some actual trends they can identify.  The only other caveat is how owners treat their machines. The permutations are endless…

I share your concern when it comes to just throwing parts at a problem. That being said, I think that answer to what constitutes a problem is a valve that ceases to rotate. As far as I know, no one other than Savvy is collecting data but I take Mike at his word. 

There have also been reports of valve to seat concentricity issues.  I’ve heard lots of maintenance pros lament the quality of Continental factory cylinders. It’s not unheard of for an owner to send new cylinders off to be reworked by an Independent shop before install in order to give them the best shot at longevity.
 

Your post implies that “proper operation” is the key to getting Continental cylinders to TBO, from which I infer that you believe premature failure is operationally induced. I’m curious what constitutes proper operation in your opinion.  

To be clear, I’m not suggesting that they never make it to TBO. We have some operators here that have had good success.  We’ve also had a number of engines require new cylinders. 
 

 

[Schllc]

12 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

I share your concern when it comes to just throwing parts at a problem. That being said, I think that answer to what constitutes a problem is a valve that ceases to rotate. As far as I know, no one other than Savvy is collecting data but I take Mike at his word. 

There have also been reports of valve to seat concentricity issues.  I’ve heard lots of maintenance pros lament the quality of Continental factory cylinders. It’s not unheard of for an owner to send new cylinders off to be reworked by an Independent shop before install in order to give them the best shot at longevity.
 

Your post implies that “proper operation” is the key to getting Continental cylinders to TBO, from which I infer that you believe premature failure is operationally induced. I’m curious what constitutes proper operation in your opinion.  

To be clear, I’m not suggesting that they never make it to TBO. We have some operators here that have had good success.  We’ve also had a number of engines require new cylinders. 
 

 

No, I said the general problems with engine longevity are also related to improper operation. 
I read in the article that the issue with the roto coils is irrespective of engine operation.

I have two friends at my home drone, they are both the directors of maintenance for two different shops on the field. 
one of them does mostly cirrus maintenance. He has not heard of this issue and has never changed a rotocoil. 
is this also anecdotal?  Probably, but it’s no less valid. 
Savvy has a much larger network to collect data, but again, the didn’t really quantify their finding. 
Lets say they counted the incidents of this condition last year, and this year they saw a 200% increase.

That’s staggering!  
Until you find out there were only 2 last year. 

Why not post a poll here to see how many 550 owners have experienced this type of failure?

[dkkim73]

10 hours ago, Dreamscape said:

... definitely forgive you, because, God forbid, we all desperately need to discuss what is happening today. 

...This was a non-event and made no sense.  The rest of the world could smell a rat and that rat had been there before.  ...

There were many things in this event that disturbed me.  One was they forced pilots to take an unapproved, experimental drug, when a commercial pilot is grounded if he takes an approved drug that has not been in the general public for at least 12 months.  My "risk calculus" (as you referred to it as) and the "synthesis" is that a majority of commercial pilots took the injection.  Ok.  Now look at the professional athletes dropping dead or teenagers with myocarditis.  What is this "risk calculus"? Would you like me to show you this data?

... These things still motivate me very much.  I will fly myself around, thank you very much.

 

Well, I was delayed in response, having just been down on my knees thanking God there are still people like you in Canada. 

A non-aviation aside: 
Agree 100%. I had been circumspect in order to provide the advice neutrally, but yes, I get exactly what you are saying, in terms of specific data, analysis, and implicit preconditions. Rodent smells were evident in many areas. I will reach out separately as I am very interested in your international observations... I have some from Africa and read some European indie sources, but it's hard to get a sense of what people thought without a media filter. There is so much to say when it comes to the actual outcomes. AMA doesn't directly control us, though they do exact their graft in ways. Bigger issue is the "institutional capture" of multiple organizations that issue "guidelines" provides a soft power that can be used to club docs over the head. With a federalist system, some states are less persecutory... e.g. with regard to use of Ivermectin (which again I knew pre-COVID). Again, so much more to say. So caveat patientem. 

Relevant to the aviation aspect: 
Funny, it had crossed my mind that I'd misunderstood and you were worried about the logistical reliability of transport in the post-COVID era. Or the possible lower quality of trainees due to supply issues. Your concern is far more direct and salient. This is actually a great aeromedical question. I haven't seen any reviews of outcomes in that space, though I imagine publishing might be an uphill battle. 
I wonder, really wonder, how many pilots actually got the mRNA therapeutics. Some did not, for sure, in my conversations; I think it may have been somewhat company-dependent in terms of who stared down management. Many did certainly roll over or didn't question it. Probably more than half, though, at least enough to be relevant. 

Bigger aeromedical malpractice (IMO) was probably forcing it on younger people in the military, e.g. the warrant officer candidates in the Army who are generally younger, male, healthy, and have even more of an inverted risk/benefit ratio with regard to cardiac adverse events. At least one experienced flight doc in that community publicly fell on her sword over this issue. 

Odd that I'm also reading about the perennial "do we really need two pilots in large planes?" question again in the aviation lay press. Coincidence of greed, I think. 

On the topic of non-conventional solutions: 
I heard once that Richard Branson started Virgin Airlines because he couldn't get a flight to the islands. Went across the field, chartered a plane, and then walked through the terminal selling tickets to other stranded passengers. Maybe true, maybe apocryphal. I wonder if you could do some kind of co-op arrangement with other professionals working in South America? I would imagine a lot of US and Canadian people would happily cost-share and would want a private flight but maybe not afford or think of a fractional share. 

Also, thinking of some of the advice about getting a turbine above... not knowing your financial levers, but maybe a common plane like the King Air? Lower capex, higher opex vs. some of the single turbos, IIUC. Someone here would have a sense of current #s. 

[dkkim73]

Data point: BTW I mentioned above electively replacing cylinders. The shop found two in-stock Continental-branded new cylinder assemblies for $250-500 more than estimated overhaul cost, shipped out next morning, vs. 4 week wait for overhaul.   So I was pleasantly surprised by the supply situation in this case. 

 

[PilotX]

BRAVO! Nuff said.

[Dreamscape]

3 hours ago, exM20K said:

@Dreamscape how about this for a plan “c” if you have the means:

buy the turboprop now, and hire a mentor pilot to ride along for the required hours?

it’s been done before, and you’d be piling up the hours quickly with your mission.

-dan

This is projected for phase 2 of the project.  I think I would use FlyTBM as here looking there the TBM (has Mooney genetics) is the best bird for the job.

[Schllc]

2 hours ago, Dreamscape said:

This is projected for phase 2 of the project.  I think I would use FlyTBM as here looking there the TBM (has Mooney genetics) is the best bird for the job.

The TBM is an amazing machine. It is not a typical GA plane. It is built like a tank. The range is not great, but it isn’t bad either. It is an order of magnitude more than any single or twin piston. I’ve heard people say a single turbine is about the same to operate as a twin piston. This is myth. 
Before I bought my Aerostar my best friend ordered a TBM 950 and put his 2013 in for annual. About two months later he sent me the photo below. 10 year requirement to remove the tail and rebuild landing gear.  This along with a hot section (mid time engine) and all the other timed items, the  annual was 350k.   On top of this, insurance was 40k a year, recurrent training etc etc…
That pretty much made my decision for me.  It made a twin piston look cheap. 

[dkkim73]

Not cheap, Ray; "inexpensive".

Actually with the discussions on other threads and boards about the possibility of a "leaded fuel-ban avgas apocalypse", I've kind of wondered (as a mental wargame) what would be the thoughtful step up to a turbine. A lot of singles seem higher-end, for lack of a better phrase, than many twins. e.g. PC12, TBM, etc. Fair number around here... BTW there is a TBM training operation/consultancy here at KBIL if relevant to @Dreamscape

But cost is what made we wonder about a King Air. If capital werent an issue, a single is simpler than a twin. But the King Air is ubiquitious, so some advantages in terms of field operational support etc. I get the impression that the TBM, in a way like Cirrus, has certain things that "just need to be done" and there is a more captive market. Please correct me if I am wrong. 

One of my airline friends told me the hot-section work on both sides of a King Air would kill me. 

 

[philiplane]

On 9/14/2024 at 5:12 PM, Schllc said:

I guess I would ask you to define “rash”. Is there data to back that up, or is it anecdotal like mine?  
I have had several acclaims and have flown them and ovations for almost 10 years now, and I’ve never had to touch a cylinder. 
I do not believe either manufacturer is “better” than the other, they both have their issues and weak points. 
I’ve read about the rotocoils, but neither myself, nor anyone I know personally have had to address that issue, and that’s bonanza, and cirrus owners as well. 
Im not saying it isn’t true, but I don’t know how prevalent the problem is, and would like to see some data if it exists. 

I change at least 80 rotocoils each year as preventative maintenance on 550 Continentals. And do exhaust valve lapping. Otherwise, these engines will not make TBO without cylinder replacement, turbo or non-turbo. The Lycoming engine does not suffer from this problem. Nor does it have starter adapter failures. 

I would choose a Bravo over an Acclaim if you are concerned about reliability, or choose the Acclaim if you really need the last few knots it will give over the Bravo. But remember that the Acclaim needs to be faster while in flight, because it will spend more time in the shop. There's no getting around that. Continental has a weak cylinder design, with the rocker arms at the bottom of the cylinder where they don't get much oil onto the valves. And lacking the sodium-filled exhaust valve stems that Lycoming has, the Acclaim exhaust valves will NEVER last as long. I'm drawing on tens of thousands of hours of customer's airplanes flights over the past three decades. It is extremely rare for a Continental engine, let alone a turbo Continental, to make TBO without cylinder changes. And there is also the bearing shift problem after cylinder maintenance. There are hundreds of Continental engines that have thrown rods through the case with no prior warning. Lycomings can do the same, but it is extremely rare.

[dkkim73]

4 minutes ago, philiplane said:

...But remember that the Acclaim needs to be faster while in flight, because it will spend more time in the shop....

...

And there is also the bearing shift problem after cylinder maintenance. There are hundreds of Continental engines that have thrown rods through the case with no prior warning. ...

Ouch. 

With respect to the bearing shift problem, is that due to poor bolt torque/tension preservation during cylinder swap, or a different issue? 

[Schllc]

47 minutes ago, philiplane said:

I change at least 80 rotocoils each year as preventative maintenance on 550 Continentals. And do exhaust valve lapping. Otherwise, these engines will not make TBO without cylinder replacement, turbo or non-turbo. The Lycoming engine does not suffer from this problem. Nor does it have starter adapter failures. 

I would choose a Bravo over an Acclaim if you are concerned about reliability, or choose the Acclaim if you really need the last few knots it will give over the Bravo. But remember that the Acclaim needs to be faster while in flight, because it will spend more time in the shop. There's no getting around that. Continental has a weak cylinder design, with the rocker arms at the bottom of the cylinder where they don't get much oil onto the valves. And lacking the sodium-filled exhaust valve stems that Lycoming has, the Acclaim exhaust valves will NEVER last as long. I'm drawing on tens of thousands of hours of customer's airplanes flights over the past three decades. It is extremely rare for a Continental engine, let alone a turbo Continental, to make TBO without cylinder changes. And there is also the bearing shift problem after cylinder maintenance. There are hundreds of Continental engines that have thrown rods through the case with no prior warning. Lycomings can do the same, but it is extremely rare.

Again, I’m not suggesting one is better or worse, only that this has not been my experience with the 550. I never had any cylinder issues at all in the years and planes I owned, nor any of the people I know personally. 
It’s also curious that all of these aircraft builders are choosing the continental over the lycoming if their engines are so troublesome. 
Given the wide use of the continental 550’s, I’d be curious to know the ratios of continental 550 to lycoming 540 coming through your shop.  If I recall correctly you are a cirrus service center right?
If you are seeing four 550’s for each 540, I would expect you to see more problems with continentals. 
While it may be helpful to have compiled data from shops all over the world to build a database, how do you account for how engines are operated. 
It’s a complex problem with no real data to codify either opinion, at least not yet. 
Your sample is obviously larger than mine, but still statistically insignificant.  

For the record, I am now flying 540’s and I really like them. Their ability to run at low rpm and generate much less noise is something I am really enjoying. They are a different animal to me after all the time behind the 550’s, but I do like them.  If I had one comment it is that they are not as efficient. 

[dkkim73]

Actually this brings up a question... IIUC the power lever on the cirrus does composite setting of parameters, rather than independent controls like Mooney.. i wonder how different installations and operations practices affect things.

[philiplane]

22 hours ago, Schllc said:

Again, I’m not suggesting one is better or worse, only that this has not been my experience with the 550. I never had any cylinder issues at all in the years and planes I owned, nor any of the people I know personally. 
It’s also curious that all of these aircraft builders are choosing the continental over the lycoming if their engines are so troublesome. 
Given the wide use of the continental 550’s, I’d be curious to know the ratios of continental 550 to lycoming 540 coming through your shop.  If I recall correctly you are a cirrus service center right?
If you are seeing four 550’s for each 540, I would expect you to see more problems with continentals. 
While it may be helpful to have compiled data from shops all over the world to build a database, how do you account for how engines are operated. 
It’s a complex problem with no real data to codify either opinion, at least not yet. 
Your sample is obviously larger than mine, but still statistically insignificant.  

For the record, I am now flying 540’s and I really like them. Their ability to run at low rpm and generate much less noise is something I am really enjoying. They are a different animal to me after all the time behind the 550’s, but I do like them.  If I had one comment it is that they are not as efficient. 

I personally fly a pair of 540 Lycomings in my Aztec. Best engines ever built. Strong, reliable, low maintenance.

Continentals have a reputation for weak cylinders. The folks on the Beech and Cirrus forums list cylinders as their biggest problem. And it is a design problem. There's nothing you can do but spend extra money to head off problems that do not occur in Lycomings. Sodium filled exhaust valve stems have been a solution that extends the life of any engine. Ford used them in their industrial and heavy truck gas engines starting in the 1960's. It's a proven technology. Continental would be wise to adopt this simple tech to help extend the life of their cylinders. The associated problem is harder to fix. Continental put the cam below the crank, which also means the pushrods are at the bottom of the cylinders. But the cooling oil that travels through those pushrods does not defy gravity, and flow freely upwards onto the valve stems. This is where the Lycoming design, with the cam above the crankshaft, is superior. All that cooling oil flows downward over the valve stems in a Lycoming. Much more cooling oil flows down and over the valves, than is splashed upward on a Continental. So Lycoming has a cooler exhaust valve, due to the sodium filled stem, and more oil to carry that heat away. Continental has neither. Continental relies only upon a rotocoil to rotate the exhaust valve, to help distribute the heat evenly. The low expectations of Continental cylinder life are something that people live with in return for a slightly more efficient engine. But the gas money you might save, is given back many times over, in maintenance costs and shorter service life. 

So why do some OEM's use Continentals instead of Lycomings? Years back, it was a combination of price per HP, and fuel efficiency. Longevity is not a concern for an airframe manufacturer, because weak cylinders and other problems don't come up until well after the airframe warranty has expired.

One great example of change is the Cirrus SR20. Introduced with six cylinder a Continental IO-360-ES in 1999. But when flight schools demanded better, Cirrus switched to the four cylinder Lycoming IO-390 in 2017. Because it's a better engine, with greater longevity and lower maintenance costs.

[philiplane]

22 hours ago, dkkim73 said:

Actually this brings up a question... IIUC the power lever on the cirrus does composite setting of parameters, rather than independent controls like Mooney.. i wonder how different installations and operations practices affect things.

It has no effect. Any Continental engine, large or small, in any airframe, suffers the same short cylinder life. 

[KLRDMD]

6 minutes ago, philiplane said:

Any Continental engine, large or small, in any airframe, suffers the same short cylinder life. 

I can't say that's been my experience. I've never had any cylinder work on any Continenals I have owned and flown. I've had an IO-360 (yes, Continental), TSIO-360s (seven of them), IO-470s (two of them), O-470s (two of them), IO-520 (three of them), and two IO-550s.

[LANCECASPER]

10 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

I can't say that's been my experience. I've never had any cylinder work on any Continenals I have owned and flown. I've had an IO-360 (yes, Continental), TSIO-360s (seven of them), IO-470s (two of them), O-470s (two of them), IO-520 (three of them), and two IO-550s.

You have to keep them more than a month to really find out. . . lol   Just kidding.

Actually the only cylinders I've ever replaced have been on a Lycoming TIO-540-AF1B. I've owned 3 Lycoming powered Mooneys and 4 Contintental powered Mooneys.

The only Lycoming Piper I owned (Mirage) was down 9 months due to a crankshaft recall (TIO-540-AE2A).

[Fly Boomer]

Here is a pretty good article that suggests that both Continental and Lycoming engines suffer problems, but the problems are different.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2020/july/pilot/savvy-maintance-valves

submitted by
NotAnExpertAnything

 

[Schllc]

3 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

Here is a pretty good article that suggests that both Continental and Lycoming engines suffer problems, but the problems are different.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2020/july/pilot/savvy-maintance-valves

submitted by
NotAnExpertAnything

 

Fascinating article…. 
My only question, which I will answer for myself when I fly day after tomorrow, is can I get the cht’s in the “ideal” range, and still control my tit.  

[donkaye, MCFI]

I have been flying Mooneys since 1990 and teaching in them since 1994 when I got my CFI.  I've had my Bravo for 32 years.  I've flown the E, M, R, TN, V across the US, with the M, R, being flown across more times than I can remember.  I mean across being from Florida to California.  The longest day with weather cooperating was a flight from Fort Lauderdale to Colorado Springs.  It took over 10 hours in the Bravo.  Of my nearly 13,000 hours, nearly 11,000 have been in Mooneys.  So you can see I really love Mooneys.

I say the above because, although I love the Mooney, it is NOT the right airplane for what you want to do.  If you were to base it in Columbia and use it to fly around South America, maybe.  A once in a lifetime trip?  OK, but even then I would have considerations.  

In my opinion you really need a mid sized jet. 

[Fly Boomer]

9 hours ago, Schllc said:

can I get the cht’s in the “ideal” range, and still control my tit.  

Always a challenge -- especially up high.

[DavePage]

On 9/14/2024 at 10:16 PM, Dreamscape said:

Wow.  I'm really leaning toward the Acclaim now.  A 6 figure Lycoming AF1B overhaul?  Could you please verify this?  I will try to verify this as well.  Thanks @DCarlton

I waited 12 mo ans spent $87K on an aF1B "Certified 0 Time" O/H.  That was delivered Jan of this year.  We had numerous supply issues, and it seems that not many people are choosing to go into the "hands on" vocations, ie mill operators, had to wayt quite a while to get my case line bored.

Now I'm hearing of another Lycoming cylinder shortage, Not Good!!

[Schllc]

That price is two years old as well..

it’s well north of 100 now. 

[NickG]

13 hours ago, donkaye said:

I have been flying Mooneys since 1990 and teaching in them since 1994 when I got my CFI.  I've had my Bravo for 32 years.  I've flown the E, M, R, TN, V across the US, with the M, R, being flown across more times than I can remember.  I mean across being from Florida to California.  The longest day with weather cooperating was a flight from Fort Lauderdale to Colorado Springs.  It took over 10 hours in the Bravo.  Of my nearly 13,000 hours, nearly 11,000 have been in Mooneys.  So you can see I really love Mooneys.

I say the above because, although I love the Mooney, it is NOT the right airplane for what you want to do.  If you were to base it in Columbia and use it to fly around South America, maybe.  A once in a lifetime trip?  OK, but even then I would have considerations.  

In my opinion you really need a mid sized jet. 

I've got a beautiful Super Mid that I'd consider dry leasing....

[Oscar Avalle]

On 9/13/2024 at 11:30 PM, Dreamscape said:

I need to fly from Southern Quebec to Northern South America 6-8 times a year, so high, far and fast is what's needed (don't trust commercial since C19).  I can't go turbine just yet and it seems to me Mooney is the one for the job, but which engine?  A Lycoming that flies rich but can make overhaul or a Continental that easily flies LOP, but doesn't make overhaul even at ROP. Before Acclaim came, Bravo was speed king in the sky, so, that's pretty good, even now.  Apparently the Acclaim is a very smooth running engine, so fatigue levels after 6 hrs are not that bad.  Or should I get an Ovation that has the longest legs but you bounce around lower down. 

What about pressurized and going up?  It sounds good in theory, but that seems like a lot to ask from that same engine.  The same engine that makes you move forward, over large expanses of water, or snowy mountains.  I don't want to ask too much from that engine and if something has to give, I don't want it to be the engine.

I would love to hear any and all opinions or stories.  This site has a million hours of flying experience and at least half a million Mooney hours.  Even though I read all I can, it's not enough.  Experience is King.  Words from guys like Don Kaye on the M20M are worth 100 engineers with no flying experience on type.  Sites like this, keep people alive.

Would really appreciate some feedback.  My time line to buy is about 2-3 months or more if needed.

Thanks.

 

Good morning… that sounds like a fun plan. As mentioned by Dan I do fly a lot in central and South America. My own a M20 now E (I swapped engines) so my flying is slower and lower… but nevertheless I do fly over water and some mountains.

Some comments based on my experience:

Mooneys are rare in South America. Mostly they fly pipers, Cessna and beech. So if you fly a Mooney you better know your plane in and out and be ready to get involved in maintenance. Having said that maintenance is overall very good. They have good labor and they know what they do. 
 

flying over water or jungle… with single engine… it makes me nervous. But then my Lycoming engine is very reliable… so I trust it. But still sometimes I would prefer to have two engines, Specially if I have to face 500 miles of open water…

so… I fly a lycoming and it has been up to now bullet proof. If you know your plane well maintenance is not an issue as labor is good. Parts you can get them… they may be more expensive, but you can get them. I would just bring the basic stuff such as  filters and spark plugs.

 

oscar

 

[Jetpilot86]

On 9/14/2024 at 2:42 PM, Brandt said:

If you can’t afford a turbine, an Aerostar might be a good option for you to look at as well. 

I have 3 airline buddies selling Aerostars because they are hard to find A&P’s that wrench on them.