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 Are some of the technologies outdated?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.

I followed all the usual threads both in this forum and elsewhere before I bought my Eagle and was convinced the prop would have been the first thing to be switched in favor of the 7498 Hartzell so I could have a "screaming Eagle". I'm glad I spent time flying the airplane before dumping the prop immediately because the airplane is much quicker than the POH and reviews suggest. Both the Eagle 1 and O2 props were newer designs specifically for the airframe/engine combination and both were efforts by Mooney and McCauley to maximize cruise speed. Due to the takeoff/climb performance complaints O2 pilots had, Mooney later switched to the Hartzell 7396 - a performance review of both the O2 two blade prop and Hartzell 7396 were published in MAPA and the conclusion is what we all know - the Hartzell climbed and accelerated better, but the O2 2 blade prop still bested the "newer" Hartzell prop by a fairly significant margin in cruise. We all know now not to buy the 7396. Now for the 7498 prop - I'm certain it will accelerate on the runway better than a 2 blade and will achieve better Vx and Vy numbers. Mooney's website seems to publish numbers for the M20U that do not seem realistic from a fuel flow perspective. Top cruise speed range published seems to indicate 15-16 gals/hr FF for 197 KTAS and max range indicates < 11 gals/hr FF for 170 KTAS. Avweb has a video of a review of the aircraft which they demo fly at 4k with a 174 KIAS for 18.4 FF and 164 KIAS for 13.7 FF. Pretty decent numbers if indeed they were straight and level (later views in the video shows them in a constant descent). They never did say what the speed at 8k or higher altitude was in that video (a chart later in the video seemed to suggest lower than 185KTAS??). Nevertheless, 164 KIAS for 13.7 FF is efficient. At that altitude and FF, I'm probably around 160 KIAS. Now the M20U does have additional aerodynamic add-ons (wingtips, cabin and added fillers), so that would not be an apples to apples comparison for prop change alone. If someone is near me with a 7498 prop Ovation or Eagle, it would be a nice comparison to fly the 2 planes back to back for comparison sake. Otherwise some actual data about FF and TAS comparison would help to separate fact from hype about the propeller differences.

I was recently instructing someone that purchased an Eagle 2 with the 3-blade McCauley (same prop as the O1) and back to back flights compared to my Eagle with the 2 blade McCauley left me with the impression the 3 blade is smoother. The 2 blade however is much more efficient and performs better than the McCauley 3 blade in pretty much every other respect. Thus, I'm Interested to see if there are any more Pireps to compare the 2 props the OP asked about along with FF numbers and TAS in cruise plus whether or not your bird carries TKS and/or A/C. Trying to compare apples to apples for cruise performance. My impressions to date of prop options: 3 blade McCauley (O1 & Eagle 2) - smooth but by far the least performance of any other option for the R & S model. I've been in both an O1 and Eagle 2 and neither were very speedy or overly impressive climbers. 2 blade McCauley (Eagle 1 only) - not quite as smooth, but efficient and speedy. My bird has GAMIs and a K&N filter (no AC and no TKS)- I can routinely count on 15-15.5 gals. FF +/- to turn in 184 KTAS at altitude. Pushing more FF yields a few more knots - to date when I pushed FF up have seen as high as about 188 KTAS but it seems to take almost an extra gallon of FF for each knot over 184, so that seems the happiest place to fly when I need to cover long distances quickly. I've never flown an O2, which uses the ever so slightly more efficient prop, but I flight plan using O2 book numbers for cruise speed / fuel burn and my numbers are routinely very close to O2 book numbers. 3 blade Hartzell - I did a demo flight a while back in an Ovation converted to one of the Hartzell 3 blade props, 2700 RPM limit but at the time did not realize there were 2 Hartzell versions, thus unsure which prop this bird had. Climb rate was impressive. This bird had A/C. PIC insisted on flying at high power setting and I seem to recall FF was somewhere in the 18.5-19 gals/hr range. My calculations from this flight are that this bird needed about 3-4 gals FF more per hour to match the cruise speed of my Eagle 1. Not sure if higher FF was solely due to the A/C or whether the prop was also less efficient since with AC it is not an apples to apples comparison. To summarize - wondering what TAS and FF R or S model owners of non-AC/TKS birds are seeing with either the Acclaim prop or the new MT scimitar composite. I'd be interested in gaining less vibration than my 2 blade but if either the Hartzell or MT turns out to be less efficient (more fuel flow to match speed), it may not be worth the significant investment.

Niko, wondering if you ever solved the issue and how? I'm starting to get a slightly high voltage reading and have a feeling my VR is on its way out so wondering about part selection and results? Thanks.

Can it be installed on an Eagle? I love the 2 blade McCauley efficiency I have now, the only other thing I could use is the legal weight limit increase.

I bought a Zizzo Urbano new but on sale - 24lbs. It fits into an old dufflebag type rolling suitcase and then neatly in the luggage of my Eagle. On same trip could also fit my 2 kids' 16 inch wheel bikes along with our luggage for the trip - well within w&b limits. Planning to eventually switch the rear wheel on the zizzo to an electric assist version to help get me to town when landing at remote airports.

Mooney did not get creative enough to sell and support the airplane. Cirrus outdid both Mooney and the Cessna Columbia even though the latter are both superior airframes to the Cirrus. That said, hopefully they at least re-open as a parts and support operation which undoubtedly could be profitable if well planned out. If Meijing plans to sell, hopefully the selling price is at a point to enable someone with enough capital to be able to operate a profitable venture for maintaining the fleet of existing aircraft and possibly finding a niche, maybe even building parts for other manufacturers. Selling 4 planes per year will not cover costs and its no surprise that they were trying to keep afloat by raising prices for parts. The few Ultras that sold will definitely be sought after aircraft.

If you are focusing primarily on the panel when buying a plane, you are focusing on the wrong thing. If this is your first plane, then do yourself a huge favor and focus on the airframe and engine because you can't even fly VFR if those are not well taken care of. Once you have that in a plane, the panel is "easier" to play with and not quite as critical. It's incredible the amount of situational awareness a GTX 345 with GPS paired to a couple iPads will give you. If you don't want to spring for the all in one transponder update, there are multiple lower dollar options to be both ADS-B compliant and give you situational awareness. I learned to fly without GPS and only used VOR for navigation. I was initially disappointed to buy my first plane with a "lowly" M1 Loran but in time learned to love it and flew coast to coast with it though I did long for a moving map. Fast forward to today and though I hate twisting the dials of my G530/430, I feel zero need to "upgrade" to a GTN or G1000 type setup because any tablet computer with the right subscriptions gives me all the situational awareness I need (and then some). With too many gizmos inside you'll start to forget that the best views are outside. Long story short, don't get too wrapped up in a plane with a "wow" panel or paint job and focus on making sure the plane itself will not cost you big bucks in repair items. The money you'll save over time on surprise repairs will be money you can use to upgrade avionics.

A brand new Mooney is likely targeted toward someone that needs quick travel usually for the sake of business. The Cirrus definitely appeals to people new to aviation simply due to cabin size and the "OH SH**" rip cord. Personally I'd never fly in a Cirrus because I feel the airframe itself is junk compared to a Mooney. I love my Mooney and its capabilities however if my other half was involved in deciding on an airplane, very likely I would not have a Mooney right now. Instead, I'd probably own something like a Saratoga, Columbia, or even a Malibu along with the huge costs to keep that plane flying. Mooney adding a 2nd door at least gets it closer to be able to compete with a new Cirrus. Unfortunately some buyers that don't know any better focus on cabin interior size and ramp presence (Cirrus sits higher). I have a fellow across from my hangar that is partners in a Cirrus and he comes over often to come check out my Eagle. He was previously a J owner and I think he actually misses his old trusty Mooney so I don't think the pilot population itself has rejected the idea of a new Mooney, likely it is a combination of price and just seeming slightly outdated as far as its cabin dynamics. Though I love the way the Mooney looks, I hate to admit that Mooney may need to look into certifying a newly designed cabin with more space both width and height (but please keep the wings and tubular frame). Additionally, so many parts of our Mooneys are hand made and custom fit which is both a good and bad thing. The good is a human had eyes on it to check for quality and fit. The bad is the same as the good since the cost of certain production items by a human take more time and effort than machines and usually more uniform. The cost of a new Cirrus being significantly lower than either Mooney model must definitely hurt. If Mooney could streamline some of its production, good chance they could be more competitive, at least on price and on parts production as well. Regardless, I do hope the owners of Mooney invest enough capital and find a way for a long future for the company because it keeps our planes flying. Lastly, I have made a couple calls to the factory since I bought my plane and if I did not reach someone, I received a call back within a day or so therefore customer service is not lacking. I do wish however the cost of certain parts were more reasonable and more readily available.

Nice plane. On the plus side, your engine likely gained an extra HP or two from the additional volume

Agreed, please don't get the impression my plane is leaving the safety of it's hangar until everything is re-checked properly and no stone is left unturned.