Schllc

I am also predominantly a flat lander, and year before last I flew my turbo all over the northwest. Most places that are paved, take into account the elevation, and have longer runways. what was a challenge for me was remembering to check the elevation of the airport to adjust my pattern altitude. I got very accustomed to the field elevation being irrelevant in planning. When I checked my atis and frequencies for landing I would write down what my 1000’ above field elevation would be so I didn’t have to look, or think about it on approach. The highest field I landed at was just below 8000 and while things “feel” a little different, in a turbo, all your critical numbers are the same so it didn’t affect me as much as I thought it would. the year before that we did much of the same trip in a NA 180 tail dragger, that was night and day different.

I have some notes at home regarding these numbers but Im pretty sure it’s right in the sweet spot, 32.8gpm at wot.

So this being the seventh long body Mooney that I have owned, I am well aware of the hot #5 challenge. All but one of my planes has had this, 730ml temps were the best. When I got that one the temps were so low and even I was convinced for hours something was wrong with it! a few of the others had a hot #5, and one of the ovations mysteriously received the pixie hole, The temp differential on that one wasn’t real bad and I don’t know if the hole made any difference to be honest. my current ride appears to be the worst one of the bunch. I really struggle to keep #5 under 400 but it isn’t possible to keep under 380 as I prefer unless I climb at less than 400fpm. it remains the hot cylinder in all phases of flight regardless of power, prop or mixture settings. it does not exceed 375 in level flight but even low power settings display a temp much hotter than I am accustomed to and would prefer. the plane is very new, 170 hours only and all baffling and cowling is tight and tidy. not sure where to start to see if I can fix this. Any suggestions , other than the pixie hole? having owned several other acclaims without this modification, and without the temperature issue so I know it’s achievable without modifying the aluminum baffle.

I have those moments too, about the turbine lancair, but it’s ironic that almost every time I have the regret and go back to look I see one that had another gear collapse. I then look at that flimsy looking set of bent paper clips, and then the side stick and I get happy about my Mooney again. I know my aversion to the side stick is irrational, but it just doesn’t feel right…. if I ever had a million or so to waste I would put a turbine on a Mooney. im still surprised that someone tinkered with a bonanza turbine mod before a Mooney…. (Not trying to open that thread again btw) I think electronic ignition on our engines will eventually be bulletproof as well, but as a few already pointed out, there just aren’t enough numbers to make it happen quickly. they probably made more Toyota gold Camrys last year than all ga piston planes ever made… as soon as one of these upstarts gets it 90% there, continental or lycoming will buy it, perfect it, and then install it standard.

So the bracket apparently is supposed to rotate like this to accommodate the arc of the throttle cable. The issue was actually a piece of rtv that broke free and got wedged on the linkage, so when I went to idle on the throttle it bound up on the sealant. I am still a little confused as to why there isn’t a bracket for the cable, but since I’m not really able to change it, and it’s on the other two acclaims I looked at today, I guess it is what it is…

Thanks for the SB, while I don’t think mine was installed upside down, something has cut loose for sure. glad it happened on the ground…. let you know what I find.

Returned for a trip today, fueled up to taxi to the hangar and the throttle was extremely difficult to dial down to idle speed. The release button kept popping and I just rod the brakes to the hangar rather than force it. upon landing and removal of the cowling I noticed this bracket secured to the stationary part of the cable housing. It does not move back and forth with the cable but it does rotate around the cable. I cannot see why this piece would need to move freely in this direction and am wondering if something is amiss. any other tsio550 owners familiar with this? Is it normal? IMG_0007.MOV

Carbon monoxide poisoning seems likely. Can’t think of anything other than impairment that could induce that behavior with two pilots on board?

Wouldn’t this be considered ancient technology now? is it really that much cheaper than a gfc500?

Didn’t he say it’s been in a hangar until very recently?

A jet 1000’ away? That’s really crazy, not many jets flying around out there vfr, how do you suppose the two of you got that close? When I got my ppl, I was in a pos Cessna trainer where nothing really worked. when I got my Mooney and adsb in I was shocked at all the traffic you don’t see. a stratus is a great backup and I bring it whenever I fly, regardless whose plane I’m in. I wouldn’t own a plane without traffic of some kind, and would even prefer active traffic, but 25k is a hard pill to swallow. The 8k for the 345 was the best money ive ever spent on my plane.

I wouldn’t argue with the principle of what you said but context is pretty important. the guys a comedian, it was a joke not an insult, the joke was pretty benign, and there are probably about a million better ways to handle the situation that a violent public assault. if you were to go around slapping everyone that offended you, I don’t think you would be where you are today. the joke may have been in poor taste, but what smith did was a completely disproportionate response, and showed bad judgement. if the victim had decided to press charges, would it have been worth the night in jail and a felony assault charge? I would say no, but to each their own.

it will be a twin turboprop using the 76lb rolls royce engine that produces 350bhp each. its gonna be a screamer!

While money is absolutely an issue, it’s also the manufacturing certificate, traceability and liability impeding prompt replacement parts. Owning and stocking the parts is value added inventory, which is not good for a company in their position. And selling directly to owners almost invites unauthorized repairs. If a mass buy were to happen it would probably have to come from an MSC, and they would have to hold and sell the part(s). Meaning if you wanted to order whatever number of any part required to incentivize a manufacturer, you would have to pay the service center and they would own all the parts. how you got reimbursed would be a tricky deal. I would lay more blame on the regulations regarding parts and manufacturers than on Mooney. The system is truly outdated and broken.

The point as I took it, is that words have meanings, and those meanings are at the base of our culture, our mores, and are how we relate to each other. Arbitrarily changing the definition of a word to appease some segment of a population injures exponentially more than it helps in most examples. I’m not going to detail any examples here, because I’m not trying to make it political, but if anyone has been a wake, and mildly observant over the past 30 years, you can think of quite a few without trying…. The genesis behind most of these “changes” seems to imply that judgment of any kind is insensitive and mean. you cannot have a civil society without it, and traditions aren’t always “just because that’s how we used to do it”, sometimes it’s just what worked best…

Very much agree with this comment. I disagree with the comment about the bravo engine being by far the most expensive. It may have been at one time but, the continental is as much if not more now, and less available. As a comparison for the frugal minded, and born of actual experience. I owned an ovation 3 for three years. My mission was about 600 mile trips. Which I flew to the tune of close 200 hours a year then bought an acclaim with the same mission. The difference in my ownership costs per year have been negligible. One turbo rebuild for $2800, and five oil changes instead of three were the only significant differences. In exchange I got the option to escape winds, climb out of icing, and shorten my trip by 20-40 minutes depending on the wind which, on that length trip is a bathroom stop or not. Either way on my trips, the fuel consumption was about 5% on average higher for the turbo. For the capability and options a turbo provided, I consider that a wash.

I would not suggest I know what makes financial sense for someone else, so the question about the pain is subjective. What I can tell you, is that if you have ever experienced moderate or severe inadvertent icing conditions, you would look at this question from a completely different perspective. Im not saying it would necessarily persuade you, but you would definitely weigh the option differently. If the option is the there, I would absolutely pick the tks or fiki. Not to say I wouldn’t consider a plane without it, but I sure do like having it .. It’s hard to really comprehend how fast and how bad things can change until you see it with your own eyes. I think many people assume some level of embellishment with stories…. Icing can be a very very serious matter.

The purchase of Mooney has little to do with the certified aircraft. It’s the manufacturing certificate that has the real value. my understanding is that to obtain this from scratch would be a monumental feat, both in time as well as cost. I am not sure comparing a car company to an aircraft company is a valid analogy. I am about as fanatical a mooniac as one could be, but even I realize the airplane in its current form, just isn’t really marketable. But the certificate to manufacture isn’t at all like making an automobile. I’d be willing to bet if Musk had to wait two years and spend Millions just to get permission to build, he would have bought one of those companies in a heartbeat.

Didn’t mean to insinuate that “you” made the claim. mostly just the general impetus behind the movement is based to the fallacy of “green”. most of these initiatives towards efficiency are well intentioned but poorly executed. bureaucrats set arbitrary mandates, the market responds to meet the mandate, but no one evaluates the efficacy of the result. appliances were just the easiest one to use as an example. our washing machines all use 5 gallons less water, cost double, and last 1/5th as long and doesn’t wash the clothes as well! Then they end up in a landfill, the same place all the plastic cars and toxic batteries will go. is that really better than a car with a distributor and points, that anyone can service that last for 40 years, simply because the six new ones that replaced it get 8mpg better?

I see where it’s going, I understand the advantages. I just don’t believe it’s any “greener”, or even better for the environment in aggregate. Like other posters have said, our grid cannot handle the transition, and look at the turnover of cars presently. What would happen with that number of batteries? Its not a fad, but it feels more like virtue signaling than meaningful. get one because it’s fun, because you get a tax break, because you like the tech, etc. But don’t claim it’s better for the environment, until they harness unicorn farts and rainbow power, the jury is still out on that one…

I think where many of these ideas fail is in the myopic approach to the calculation of efficiency. Take for example air conditioners. I own a building that has 10 separate units, each of which is identical in use and size. two of the units until recently were original. The building was built in 1984. The other units have all been replaced between four to eight time each, neither of these units ever required a repair to the closed system. 5-10 years has almost become the service life of air conditioners. Now is the improved efficiency gained as a result of government mandated specifications and refrigerant changes actually caused less of an impact, and a net energy savings, than changing a unit 8 times? This doesn’t count repairs, refrigerant losses etc. Almost everything appliance related (having a hard time thinking of anything made to be serviced long term actually) has become throw away as a result and cars are not far from the same fate. What are the impact of these types of things on EV and how does it factor in? I agree that we are headed in the direction of EV’s but I am dubious of the cumulative “savings” they will provide. The whole carbon argument itself is suspect. Science may indicate warming temperatures, but there is scant evidence codifying that it’s caused by humans. ICE will be around for a LONG time. Only one thing, in my humble opinion, is certain…. if it hasn’t occurred before, relatively soon after the fossil fuels are depleted, battery breakthroughs will be made!

Cause it’s a Toyota. If Toyota announced it was making a plane I’d buy two without knowing what it even looked like or the numbers because it would exceed both of those expectations no matter what they were. And, ten years later I’d probably get more than I paid for both them, regret sellin immediately and buy two more!

I reluctantly agree with the comments about the airframe. I believe it’s also a function of the way our society evolved. We just aren’t producing skilled labor anymore. Kids today are discouraged from using their hands (aside from mobile devices that is), and to what end? Look at any skilled labor industry, and you’ll notice almost everyone competent is in their late 40’s or older. The younger generation isn’t interested in working this way. The automated processes that ares so well suited to composites is an adaptation to lack of capable people as well technological advances. That being said, the value in Mooney is really in the manufacturing certificate. Anyone who did aspire to build planes would be well advised to buy a company that already had the ability to produce something, the revenue stream from supporting the fleet is a bonus(assuming you make a viable product) in cash flow. Cirrus did a masterful job with marketing, creating a sub culture, but most importantly developing a financing and training arm that turned a lot of people who would otherwise never even have flown, into pilots. In the end though, it’s still really about demand

There is a Mooney acclaim with that paint scheme sitting in the factory floor at this moment. I believe it was a testing bed for some things and then was robbed of some parts to complete on of the last certified acclaims. I was told there was too much involved at this time to convert it from experimental to certified for sale…. sniff… sniff…

For the ovation… I always get a roll of painters tape before I start anything, and put about six inchs of protection on the fuselage directly behind the lower cowling. remove top cowling. Then loosen all the locking screws out except for one on each side. spin prop so one lace is perpendicular to the ground. lay on your back underneath in front of nose wheel and free the air intake panel and the small panel on passenger side. go to pilot side and release the one cam lock left so you can access the scat tube that’s connected to the cowling. Hold the cowling in place and release the remaining screws. get on the ground again and be patient and wiggle it free. no real way to describe it in writing, but if you’re patient it will become obvious. this is MUCH easier with two people. most most most important is the tape. You WILL horribly scratch your plane if you don’t. (Ask me how I know) the acclaim is MUCH easier, and even doing it alone is no problem. I can’t speak to the bravo but it looks about as complex as the ovation.