Schllc

There is no difference in the engine. the stc is only a prop governor adjustment, fuel flow and different prop. If there is a difference in cylinder life it would be luck of the draw or how it’s run. my two ovations were well past 1500 hours on original cylinders and they have been flying for four and two years since I sold them. I haven’t had any issues with my turbo 550’s cylinder either. But obvioulsy I’m a small sample…

A year and a half ago is a lifetime… everything has ballooned like crazy. I do believe it will correct to an extent. the cost of the panel spec’d may not change as much. it’s all of the “well while you have it torn open”…. that’s what really adds up! In for a penny, in for a pound.

Is it invisible to radar!?

Any high resolution image can be brought to a local embroidery shop and put on whatever goods you desire. As long as you aren’t doing them to sell to people it’s no different that doing one in your home. which btw… I took my daughter to a fabric store to buy a sewing machine recently and one could buy a machine to make those logos for around $1,000 in your own home…. technology is amazing…

Yes, it’s a zero. they didn’t plan on using any of the remnant, only the data tag.

Yep, a relative of mine pulled this out of Malaysia and is restoring. this is all there is of the plane anyone wanna guess what it is?

I live in south Florida and have had several mooney’s with AC, and two with fiki. I liked the AC, but I do not miss it at all and will probably not own another with AC. I didn’t really have any issues with the AC. Some here have had horror stories, and it worked well. But…. you really only need it briefly on the ground, and since I bought a cool scoop, I really just don’t miss it. It’s amazing how much air that little think brings in and between that and the door it’s more than adequate. id rather have the extra 100# of UL

Is it actually open, or is it just the indicator saying it’s open?

I’d have to go with the P51 as well. 2-1/2 hours of dual, the most fun I’ve ever had with my pants on.

I think you either like the bubble or not. I would never own a traveling machine with a bubble canopy. It’s hard enough to get out of the sun with a normal cockpit.

There are a few very well known Aerostar shops in the country. one of them is 10 min from me. I looked at probably 50 aerostars over three years. 30 or so in person, two prebuys that I walked. They are very unique planes, the learning curve is steep, and has burned a lot of buyers. The 700 is a LOT faster, but the 601p is also faster, just not as much. Going faster is always nicer, I just couldn’t see spending more and going slower. I really just wanted to carry my family, and make it quieter, and go no slower. That being said, there is no better value for what you get than a Mooney. Period. Wish me luck!

Oh, and plan on keeping a Mooney as well, thought i could live without but I can’t..

I’ve done my homework, I know what I’m getting into. An Aerostar isn’t cheap to get into proper condition, but hangar talk is the same as everything else, when people repeat what they hear from people who heard. I’m under no delusion that it is going to be as cheap as a Mooney. But it is absolutely going to be cheaper than a single turbine to own and operate.

I went through the same journey, bought and sold a bunch of mooney’s trying to find something else. My challenge with the lancair is I didn’t build it, and I don’t want to build one. Every one I looked at was some measure of unfinished and it sounds trivial until you look at one in person, it’s not a comforting feeling. I wouldn’t even consider one without several hundred hours. I was also on the verge again recently of considering a single engine turboprop when I spoke to a friend getting his tbm out of a 160k annual. Just mandatory timed out items, and inspections. Ouch…. Then recurrent training of 6-8k a year, on top of insurance, extra charges at fbo’s etc. I ended up with an Aerostar. I went with the 601p vs the 700 for maintenance costs, and given what had been done before I bought it, and what I’ve put into it, annuals should be manageable. Insurance was slightly more than the Mooney, purchase price was very reasonable. It is at least double the cost to own than the Mooney though. and I spent more than the purchase price in avionics, but engines are fresh, new paint, and good interior, useful load is a real four person airplane with fuel. The only quieter twin piston I’ve been in was a Navajo, and It is the only piston twin that’s faster than the Mooney, and believe it or not, it flys like a Mooney.

Don’t have gami’s yet but going to send the data log to JP soon. fuel flow is a bit high as well so it could be a fuel setup. I just dont think I’ve seen any of my engines have this big a difference in EGT’s with such ideal cht’s. tried swapping out the probes and it didn’t change the readings. It could be their placement , or fuel flow spread between. Injectors. I don’t think it’s cause for alarm or “airworthy action”. just wanted to check with the brain trust here I will follow up when it’s resolved.

The engine recently underwent a tear down after a gear up. everything in the engine was replaced except for the crank and the turbos, and magnetos were also overhauled. So new cylinders, pistons, cam, lifters etc. the engine only had about 300 hours at the time of the gear up. I bought it with about 10 hours after the tear down. it runs very well both LOP and ROP but I notices this today and I’m not sure why or if it’s something to be concerned about. it’s fairly consistent in cruise.

If you were to download a performance profile for the ovation on foreflight, you would find it is nearly impossible to load an ovation out of CG. The only way you could do it is by doing things with weight that would never really happen in the real world.

I meant the base price for an annual is before any additional items are found. I suppose that’s possible, but I’ve never had it happen to me. Ending up at 7k when it’s all said and done is a more realistic expectation for cost of a completed annual.

Base price for an annual at most places iv’e checked was between 2-3k, so that isn’t unreasonable. but I’ve never had one end up there…. I thought the 7k price was a more realistic expectation.

KS is correct, you are going to hear a lot of opinions. I would say if it was me, after all that time in the piper, I wouldn’t change horses for a small gain. If you were to jump up to a model that really shaved some time off it would make more sense, but for a marginal gain it’s hard to justify.

As a six year acclaim owner of multiple planes, I would say this is conjecture, and would say mostly depends on how the engine is treated. Oddly enough the TSIO had a 2,200 hour tbo vx the NA 550 with a 2,000

This^^^^^^^^ x 10000

That is one of the things I like the most about the acclaim. you can fly it almost exactly like an ovation if you want the legs. it still isn’t quite as efficient at ovation altitudes, but once you are near the ceiling it’s even better. the acclaim is an amazing machine. love to hear @LANCECASPER chime in about the bravo comparison. He has owned his acclaim for at least a year now right?

That was in an acclaim too. I thought low power settings, but look at the speeds… maybe a low power setting and a hella tail wind.

Those compressions wouldn’t turn me off a bit if it makes full power and wasn’t part of a trend downward. if it’s flown regularly, has good mxrecords it wouldn’t bother me. but it’s a convenient way to hit a sell over the head and most mechanics would be unwilling to be positive about it which adds to anxiety.