Since we are getting (another) one of these in the “family” I thought it would be good to have a thread on the type.
I had not long ago watched an interesting two-part series by Skywagon University here
and here
As you can imagine I’ve been reading up on this plane a lot for the past few weeks, especially on engine/TC management. Of course I also found and watched this video review. And while the plane is touted as the real personal airliner, due to being able to reach 25000ft and theoretically cruise at 220kt, that’s more of a sales pitch than reality. I mean, the plane is like a personal airliner in terms of what it can do, but you don’t want to regularly fly it like that or at all.
First, it’s immediately expensive due to high gas consumption.. The max speed requires a very ROP mixture setting, talking 20gal/h+. This Mooney departs their traditional efficient design considerably and instead focuses on performance. But second that performance also comes with a secondary price tag which is maintenance costs.
It’s quite funny to read the POH. Some of the limitations and recommend power settings were later found to be only possible if one accepts that their engine will not reach TBO, not even close, and neither the TC or the exhaust manifold. The funny part is the POH refers you to the Lycoming engine manual for the TIO-540-AF1A (the original design) and TIO-540-AF1B (Bravo version, hence the name). And that manual sets quite lower limits if one wants to preserve the longevity of the engine.
For example, max TIT up to 22000ft per POH of 1750F vs 1650F in the Lycoming manual. Max continuous cruise power setting of 34"/2400RPM all the way up to 25000ft per POH which is 90% power+, while Lycoming doesn’t recommend to cruise at higher than 75%, which is more like 29"/2400RPM.
It’s no wonder people were doing top overhauls at 400h before the Bravo version engine, which has additional oil cooling over the cylinder exhaust valve guides. Even with the Bravo, these settings are just not possible unless one wants to go through top overhauls and TC overhauls much sooner than TBO, but also risk of burning through the exhaust piping and just in general trash the engine. Oh and btw it requires, yes requires 25h oil changes.
So yeah, while it can be your personal airliner, one should likely baby this plane. What does that mean? For peak TIT at 65% one can expect 160TAS in the low teens at around 14-15gal/h. Not too bad, since this can be 180TAS in higher teens. One also probably doesn’t want to go higher than 17000ft to avoid the full face O2 mask and the risks associated with that.
Another downside is that apparently the intake manifold is curved which means it notoriously can’t easily do LOP, so if one wanted to go slower for less gas, it requires quite some tuning to get it there. But some people have managed to do it.
Other than that it’s a fine plane, can carry 4 people and some luggage with about 4h of endurance and it’s a Mooney, so it looks great, flies steady and can handle almost anything you throw at it. Well that’s what is said about it, had only one ride in it on the right seat so far, so I’ll have to see 😅
Some more reading can be done here: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/1998/january/pilot/mooney-bravo
I had understood the “B” did away with most of the durability problems in the 270hp TIO-540-AF1A cylinders, not the case?
Even if cylinder durability is low, I would not paint such a grim picture and simply be mentally prepared for the odd cylinder replacement averaging two cylinder-sets per TBO (I don’t buy the riskier top-overhaul concept though I must admit it simplifies maintenance management). Even on NA high-power Lycosaures some kind of cylinder work mid-life is not rare. Once we get lead-free 100-octane avgas this should improve.
Any idea how it compares to the M350’s 350hp TIO-540-AE2A in cylinder durability? The latter is almost guaranteed for the mid-life top-OH. One would hope the lower hp on the AF1A would help with durability.
4 POB and 4 hrs @180KTAS is a lot of capability, indeed. Should not peak TIT @65% be more like 13 GPH? Just looking at a similar power level in our TSIO-520P with 7.5:1 CR LOP, should be similar, should it not? LOP and peak efficiency are very similar to one another for a given CR.
We also do 25-hr oil changes and Savvy recommends max 35hrs anyway on all TC: they have the data to back it up.
I’ve was a very close to go for Bravo.
Fantastic machines, Turbo, TKS, Long body air frame, Very fast…
But there are also some things that I thought about more than once for I decided..
Most Bravos only fly ROP, and then at 75% @ 19.5 Gallon/h…
Yes, I know that you can fly at 65% or 55%… Think we have ~15-16 Gallon there, sure it flies at 160KTas.
Then many Bravos, have Garmin 1000… And most of them are not WAAS upgraded… = 35000EUR + installation.
If you want Synthetic Vision that’s another 10000EUR…
And a S-TEC 55X autopilot that you can’t change without lots of $$$
All above was OK for me in the end…
But the biggest problem is the Useful load…
Many around ~800-920lbs and then TKS fluid is not included.
And then we have MTOW that is higher than the MLW.
But if you fly in your underwear it’s a great 2 person aircraft + baggage.
Sadly it didn’t work for me at 95kg + (Family 75kg + 30kg + 15kg baggage).
If I was reconsidering a Bravo, I would try to find a non G1000 that have ~1000-1050lbs
There is one on Plane Check right now that I’m drooling on :-)
Antonio wrote:
not the case?
No idea. From what I read, key is to keep the CHT below 380°F at all costs and then cylinders should last. But that means running the engine very ROP as well as some cowl flaps open in cruise. And then there’s the problem of TIT and and how a high power seating is wearing out the TC and the exhaust manifold which is prone to cracking under these temps.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great plane for sure, otherwise I wouldn’t have gone for it. But from what I read one has to baby it or run extremely ROP.
Antonio wrote:
Should not peak TIT @65% be more like 13 GPH? Just looking at a similar power level in our TSIO-520P with 7.5:1 CR LOP
Peak TIT is not LOP.. so probably not. Also I pulled that number out of my ass. Only after I start flying will I be able to say what the consumption is at peak and if it’s capable of LOP or not. And this engine is 8.0:1 compression ratio.
From what I’ve read
Keep CHT under 380F, max 400
TIT under 1600F, Think many fly 1550F
29 / 2400 = 75%
26 / 2400 = 65%
There is a quite good summary at MooneySpace in Bravo forum from Don Kaye.
That’s about right, yes. Although Don Kaye to me seems like someone who doesn’t think they might not know everything. There are a couple of other posters that are much more credible sounding.
hazek wrote:
It’s quite funny to read the POH.
Yea, that is the one thing you can do before you go and fly it. Figure out the optimum settings for what you want to do and build your own cruise/range tables out of that. The “B” POH is one I don’t have so I can’t really look at it myself, but those figures sound about right for one of the Mooneys which have the bigger engines such as the Bravo and Acclaim.
hazek wrote:
can carry 4 people and some luggage with about 4h of endurance and it’s a Mooney,
that on it’s own is something not a lot of Mooneys can do.
I’ve read in several older reviews that the Bravo is considered to be the “best Mooney” for it’s versatility. Clearly, as a turbo charged airplane its engine needs to be treated with much more care and love for detail than a non-turbo engine. LOP is very often another thing too few people really bother as they see their ride as a sports – car type of thing. I’d say make your own experiences. it should be possible to go LOP at 65% or below.
Darkfixer wrote:
MooneySpace in Bravo forum from Don Kaye.
Don is quite knowledgable and also someone who tries to make things easier rather than complex. That is something lots of Mooney people have been trying to do. Some of that may be a bit out of date in todays day and age with fuel prices and overhauls a tad more expensive than they used to be.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
hazek wrote: can carry 4 people and some luggage with about 4h of endurance and it’s a Mooney,that on it’s own is something not a lot of Mooneys can do.
I’ve read in several older reviews that the Bravo is considered to be the “best Mooney” for it’s versatility. Clearly, as a turbo charged airplane its engine needs to be treated with much more care and love for detail than a non-turbo engine. LOP is very often another thing too few people really bother as they see their ride as a sports – car type of thing. I’d say make your own experiences. it should be possible to go LOP at 65% or below.
For me the biggest problem with “long body” Mooneys like Bravo was the low useful load combined with MLW and TKS…
Some have low as 8xxlbs and the one I was looking at had 912lbs.
At first sight 912Lbs (413Kg) sounds good…
MTOW: 3368Lbs (1528Kg)
Max landning weight: 3200Lbs (1452Kg)
TKS Fluid: 58Lbs (26Kg)
1x Pilot 85Kg
1x Co-Pilot 85Kg
1x Baggage 15Kg
1x TKS Fluid (Full) 26Kg
Total: 211Kg
Max Fuel: 77USG if you take off at MTOW, but you need to burn 29USG before landning, or you land overweight.
If you want to takeoff at MLW so you are under the limit from start, then you have 58 Gallon.
Around 3h without reserve. (Flying at 75%/19g/h)
And with 45min reserve and if flying IFR with alternate etc you don’t have much fuel left.
Sure you can have less/none TKS fluid, less baggage, remove 1 or 2 back seats…
I wished that they had 200-300 more Useful load, or the MLW was same as MTOW.
