Chris K

GAMI received an STC by the FAA a while back and already being sold at a handful of airports. Swift for only certain engines, and VP racing in the process of testing. So far the only complaints on the GAMI I've heard about were via Cirrus owners (fuel leakage through seals/gas tanks). To the OP, it's easier to test and switch the fuel being used than an entire GA fleet of engines. Are some of the technologies outdated? Without a doubt considering how far ahead the auto industry has come vs aviation in terms of efficiency and power output from new technologies. Part of the problem is government certification requirements. With computer modeling and other streamlined testing methods available today, the entire process is in dire need to be revamped. Surely if costs of testing and certifying engines for existing aircraft were reduced, there likely would be newer/modern engines available to consider as replacement when TBO rolls around. Separately, wondering if anyone in the Mooney community has tried any of the new fuels yet?

My first plane was a J and I purchased immediately after obtaining my PP flying only 172's. When transitioning, get a good CFI who has complex + retractable time. Find a good aircraft broker as well and/or a dealer that has a J for sale and see if they are willing to demonstrate. Take time with the transition and enjoy. The more time you will spend practicing/learning, the more you will eventually enjoy the airplane and stay safe.

x2. Read any article regarding the differences between a 252 and 231, the Merlyn was just one part of the equation. The intercooler helps reduce the temps of the pressurized air coming from the turbocharger which is how the 252 is capable of managing the higher power setting at higher altitudes (this plus a better cowl flap).

Replying to original poster - yes, it is a fantastic choice of an airplane. The engine and airframe are identical to the Ovation series. I've flown several versions of the Eagle (both with 2 blade and 3 blade props), as well as several different Ovations (original 3 blade McCauley and the Hartzell top prop). Speeds and fuel burn will always vary based on how you maintain the airplane and how it is equipped. The Eagle has a lighter weight advantage vs. the Ovation. A 3 blade prop equipped aircraft will accelerate more quickly down the runway as it is capable of generating more static thrust from a standstill. That advantage is typically lost by the time you get above 120 KIAS or so. In my experience, the 3 blade will climb more quickly at speeds under 120 KIAS. Possibly the 3 blade has an advantage in climb over 10k feet but I haven't taken an Ovation over 10k to know either way. Equipment and maintenance does make a difference. My plane is equipped with GAMI, an electronic ignition w/variable timing, K&N filter, a relatively low time engine, I keep the cylinders warm year round with a new generation tanis heater system, and retain the 2 blade McCauley prop. I've flown back to back vs. 3 other Eagles and get around 6 KIAS or better than other 2 blades without GAMI/ignition/filter and the care that mine receives. Against the 3 blade McCauley version, I saw even better numbers and was actually quite surprised at the lack of both cruise and climb performance with that one (it was limited to 2400 RPM). I've flown Ovations with the 3 blade McCauley and even at 2500 RPM were still considerably slower than my 2 blade Eagle. The difference between the 3 blade McCauley Ovation vs 3 blade McCauley Eagle resulted in about the same cruise speed (RPM did not make much difference) and the Ovation had slightly better takeoff performance due to the higher RPM. The 3 blade Hartzell equipped Ovations are faster than the 3 blade McCauley props. I've never flown an O2 with the 2 blade "toothpick" prop so cannot compare. At the same horsepower/fuel burn setting of a standard 2 blade Eagle vs a 3 blade Hartzell, there is no discernable difference in cruise speed in my experience. I typically cruise 184 KTAS at 8-9K feet and plan for 14-15 GPH (that will vary slightly depending on OAT, pressure, etc.). If in a rush, I can burn more fuel and coax about 188 KTAS in cruise, though fuel burn is in excess of 16 GPH (I don't typically fly at this setting so don't recall specific GPH). Could I see 190+ KTAS? Possibly, but regardless if in my plane or any 3 blade Hartzell equipped version, the fuel burn becomes exponential to tweak out the extra knot or two. I remember flying an O3 with a sales demonstrator pilot who wanted to show off the performance of the 310HP top prop version. I thought it was quick until I noticed his unusually high power setting burning around 20 GPH in order to achieve around 168 KIAS at 5k feet. In other words you are not going to achieve miracle type increase of airspeeds using the exact same airframe without a substantial increase in power. I also cannot speak to longevity running at max power settings either. In summary, yes they are fantastic aircraft, though not quite as common due to being produced for maybe 3 years. Any aircraft you do purchase, spend time to go through it thoroughly and expect to spend extra $ the first couple years to deal with any previous maintenance shortcuts especially if you want to extract highest performance/efficiency. If Mooney ever makes a comeback, they should come back with the Ultra version of the airframe and offer a packages similar to the Eagle and the J models that could compete with the Cirrus 20/22 models. I've also never met a mechanic that felt the Cirrus airframe is better than a Mooney.

Just realized I never followed up on this topic. 2 years later and followed this procedure - no issues since. Left no voids which meant cleaning up left over RTV afterward pushing the guage in place. The cleanup was fairly easy as any excess dry RTV on the wing will just break away from painted surfaces by rolling your finger over.

So this past weekend one of the wing fuel sight gages decided it no longer liked being affixed to the wing and just departed the aircraft. Upon inspection, it looks like nothing holds these in place other than plain silicone. Just ordered a new one to the tune of some 145 dollars. My question is has anyone figured out a better glue to use other than silicone in order to not lose again? If silicone is sufficient, how much to put in there to make it both stay and work properly? It appears that whomever siliconed previously did so while leaving an orifice in the center of the silicone - not sure if that was done for function of the magnetic gage or simply installer preference.

Tragic. I missed this story until just recently. This thread and discussion is interesting but wing spar failure might be jumping to conclusions until all the facts are in. This section of the initial report plus the location the pieces were found typical are indications of what failed first. Initial examination revealed the left horizontal stabilizer separated about 6 inches outboard of the vertical stabilizer. The three outboard hinge blocks of the left elevator remained attached to the left horizontal stabilizer, with the rivets pulled out and sheared off the elevator. I would be amazed as most of you are whether the main spar failure was the cause (instead seems to have occurred after the last sudden descending left turn likely due to the loss of the left stabilizer). The fact the rivets sheared off only one side of the elevator is something I find amazing As others mentioned regarding the relatively uniform main spar failures, the failure on the horizontal stabilizers/elevators would occur on both sides, especially if the suspected cause is overspeed followed by flutter. Instead seems some other load caused the overstress of only one side. Until both sides of the tail are analyzed, seemingly one side was weaker than the other. I wonder what sort of past repairs the investigators will find in the logbooks on the tail section or whether there may have been existing hangar rash/and or corrosion that went unnoticed. Hopefully we know the answers soon. In the meantime, safe flying to all.

I could see rotating this 90 degrees so the hitch receiver faces the plane, then weld a new handle on the opposite side. Result would still be 1/2 off anything else you pay double for simply because the word airplane is included.

OK, I was asking because the drag from A/C or TKS will slow you down in cruise more than weight/CG loading will. I believe the early O's had the large A/C scoop for the air interchange so it would not be a fair comparison. Actual comparisons with the Acclaim prop would be greatly appreciated - if and or when the time comes to replace my prop - if the cruise performance with the Acclaim prop is equal or better than what I have now, it would be an easy decision to spend money for a smoother ride as well.

The integrated lights and LED's do look incredible. Anyone have cost plus difficulty of install information for these? Before/After test flights if anyone else has this info would be interesting.

Does your bird have A/C or TKS? if no, what sort of cruise do you see in the 13-16 GPH FF range? I've actually seen Niko's plane just before he purchased and it is very similar to mine. If he is able to do 175 TAS with the 7693 (thick prop), seemingly the thin Acclaim / Ultra prop should be yielding several knots more?

Most of you may know that the recent Acclaim/Ultra renditions from Mooney had additional aerodynamic touches to fill more gaps in the airframe, a composite (cleaner) forward cabin and newer winglets. Out of curiosity I started looking into what sort of efficiency the newer winglets provide and could not find anything online - has anyone actually seen any sort of testing or information published? Separately, I did come across this winglet (link below) which look like the Ultra winglets on steriods as these seem to trail several inches further back than the ailerons. I also found a picture with these winglets on N252AD online. Not sure if the owner is on here or not, but wondering what his feedback on this product is or whether anyone else on here has tried these. Seemingly if these are efficient, you'd get both the LED light conversion along with a more efficient wing? https://www.aveoengineering.com/crystal-conforma-for-mooney/

The 7693 - thanks. For that price, makes sense to take it for what you got. Anyone else out there with the 7298 for comparison sakes?

Well that is interesting. What was the part number of the cirrus prop and why was it so cheap? So after cutting, is it the equivalent of the 7396 or the 7498 Mooney prop? Loss of 2 knots not so bad. 13 GPH, what power setting are you using? Full MP, 2550 and LOP?

Thanks Niko - so how much speed did you lose? What is your typical FF and TAS? Is your cost a typo at 1,900 or did you mean 19,000? Was that prop only or plus the STC? I still have useful time on my prop, just thinking in advance when the time comes whether makes sense to keep the 2 blade or whether the 7498 has any speed or efficiency advantage. I think you're one of the few people to come out and say the 2 blade is faster, wondering how much difference. Runway length and climb are non-issues for me and I routinely see better than book. Benefit for me would be some added smoothness. For 25k cost I'd expect that it better go fast as well.