Jump to content

real world performance differences between Acclaim and Ovation


RobertE

Recommended Posts

Sorry.  I know I've read the sort of comparisons I'm looking for but when I searched for it (heck, I may have been the one who asked the question) I can't find anything.

In any event, I know the published specs but wonder what happens in the real world.  To you Ovation owners, what's a typical profile for your longer flights?  Altitude and true airspeed.  Same for Acclaim owners.  And to those Acclaim owners, do you regularly take on the Colorado Rockies and, if so, do you go all the way up to the 20s? 

I'm itching to buy one or the other - probably not for a year or two - and am wondering about real world.  My typical use will be for 500-700 nm flights in the west, typically involving the Sierras or some other mountain range.  I fly over the Sierras and Wasatch mountains and northern sections of the Rockies regularly in my J at 14K or 15K but don't take on the teeth of the Rockies in Colorado.  Would both of these aircraft end my concerns about this or only one?

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See Joe Zuffaletto for details of the ultimate Mooney performance machine...

If you are an NA guy, and are willing to climb at 2,000fpm for a while, go TopProp and 310hp.

The Acclaim with 310hp is similar, but does the fast climb for a lot longer.

Both get off the ground in short distances and climb really well.  The Acclaim with a pair of TNs just keeps doing it longer.

The O can be run LOP 165kts, or ROP 175kts, 12 vs 15 gph...I prefer to fly high in the non O2 levels. My typical flight is just over an hour long.  (200NM)

Acclaim performance at altitude is impressive.

Round numbers off the top of my head.  Glad you asked...:)

Best regards,

-a-

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The O3 is an awesome climbing machine to the non-O2 flight levels and will give you all you want up to that point. I am in the southeast, so I have none of the mountain range problems you face and typically fly at the standard NA cruise levels between 8-11,000' depending on winds. I seem to be flying low a lot lately because of the typical strong winds in the later winter/spring. My most common trips are ~250NM with some longer 600NM trips to Kansas 2-3 times per year.

At cruise levels, I flight plan 175 KTAS on 13.5 gph.  I fly WOT/LOP all the time in cruise, and manage RPM between 2400-2500 depending on weight, headwinds, etc. I can get an extra 5-7 knots if I want to burn 5 more gph at ROP, but that math doesn't make sense to me.  I did do a sport air race last year where I flew with minimum required gas (for weight) at 2000' AGL and averaged 185 KTAS over a 100NM course...which included time for initial takeoff climb and five course turns (one of which I botched horribly). I flew that whole thing at WOT, 2550 RPM and very very ROP! Just looking at the gauges, in the straight away segments I was over 190 TAS.  (Sidenote: my plane has the factory A/C which adds an air vent to the belly and a pulley off the engine driving a compressor. The added drag and strain on the engine does probably rob me of 5 knots...but well worth it down here!)

That said, I would think with your mountain flying profile, you would be more comfortable with the added power in the upper levels provided by the turbos in an Acclaim.  As noted above, Joe Z will be your best source of info there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

I bought an Acclaim precisely because I routinely cross the Rockies and Sierras, and I wanted to do so with the best combination of performance and range possible.

I installed the 310hp STC, which makes takeoff and climb performance astonishing. Last summer I climbed out of Leadville at almost 1,800fpm all the way up to 17,500'.

I rarely fly below 15,500'. More typically I'm between FL180 and FL200. Will go higher if I need to top weather, but otherwise FL200 is high enough for me.

At those altitudes, real-world performance is this: at 29"MP and 2500rpm I see 215KTAS at 18gph ROP, and 205KTAS at 14.5gph LOP. I use ROP for trips of 300nm or less because I like to go fast, but for longer trips I go LOP. Two years ago I flew nonstop from KAPA to KCCR in 4.5 hours and burned 70 gallons of fuel. Was bucking a 15-20 knot headwind the entire way. That's pretty amazing performance and efficiency.

I fly the Acclaim to Northern CA once or twice a year so next time I do maybe you can come check it out.

Here's a taste of it. This is crossing the Rockies eastbound at FL180.

 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I resemble that remark.  I am an NA guy, with an NA engine from NE....

not the North East... The New England.  Not that there is anything wrong with the Old England.... :)

Ya cahnt heah my accent through my typing...

Best regards,

-a-

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, FlyDave said:

I will add that once you fly a turbocharged airplane for any period of time it's hard to go back to a NA plane.

I would add FIKI to a turbocharged plane gives you a go anywhere, anytime plane...without it your still somewhat limited. If I had the money for an acclaim I would definitely add FIKI.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...
2 hours ago, Colby colter said:

I have an ovation and looking at the +30 knot increase with turbo sounds tempting.  

How much more in maintenance costs does an acclaim run over an ovation?  

It’s quite significant.  Among other items, a reman engine on the Ovation is in the ballpark of $42k.  The TSIO550 on the Acclaim will run you well north of $82k.  If you don’t manage the Acclaim engine properly, you’ll wind up blowing through cylinders every few hundred hours.  I’ve seen plenty of them come through my IA’s shop that have been through several sets of cylinders where their engines have had less than 1000 hours.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome aboard Colby!

Steven’s logic is unfortunately true....

Proper operation of the engine is quite possible and May require some self control...

There are two methods that Mooney pilots operate their engines... both are equally correct...

1) Efficiency... Dial back some power and cruise faster than most of the single engine world, while maintaining CHTs...

2) Flaming Dragon Mode... Use all of the available power, and fly faster than any other piston single... the additional hardware cost is at least one set of cylinders at the halfway point...

If this is a business plane... the extra speed often makes financial sense...

If you often fly 500nms... the extra speed often makes sense...

If you are going with a FIKI plane for all its capabilities... might as well get the pair of snails too...

 

My main trips were only 200nms... the short distance precludes the ability to get to the FLs where the turbo efficiency really shines...

I was hoping to add the Acclaim engine to my Ovation... at OH time... Just need a little piece of paper to make that happen...

It turns out... a family of four flying around on O2 is not very common...

The O just simplifies things so well....

Flying in the flight levels takes additional knowledge and effort... and maintenance costs...

Go for it!

We can help get you ready... :)

Best regards,

-a-

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have owned both an ovation and an acclaim. 
the performance difference is notable. 
my mission is nearly the same as yours in distance, not terrain. 
the acclaim consistently reduced my trip by 30-45 minutes. 
speed and ability to minimize effects of headwinds at altitude. 
ownership was a little more expensive on the acclaim but, to me, worth it for the speed. 
After several hundred hours in an acclaim, it’s easy to see how people fly them incorrectly. 
descent profiling, and managing temps in climb and cruise requires a lot more attention than my ovation. 
Learn how to fly the TN properly and accept that a more complex engine requires more maintenance(more to break as well) and it’s not a problem. 
I miss my acclaim very much and wish I had never sold it, once youve had a turbo, it’s hard to go back. 
Fuel burn in terms of range is slightly lower in an acclaim, but with your mission, won’t matter much. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Schllc said:

I have owned both an ovation and an acclaim. 
the performance difference is notable. 
my mission is nearly the same as yours in distance, not terrain. 
the acclaim consistently reduced my trip by 30-45 minutes. 
speed and ability to minimize effects of headwinds at altitude. 
ownership was a little more expensive on the acclaim but, to me, worth it for the speed. 
After several hundred hours in an acclaim, it’s easy to see how people fly them incorrectly. 
descent profiling, and managing temps in climb and cruise requires a lot more attention than my ovation. 
Learn how to fly the TN properly and accept that a more complex engine requires more maintenance(more to break as well) and it’s not a problem. 
I miss my acclaim very much and wish I had never sold it, once youve had a turbo, it’s hard to go back. 
Fuel burn in terms of range is slightly lower in an acclaim, but with your mission, won’t matter much. 

Take comfort in knowing who you sold it to will take great care of this great example of an Acclaim. PM me and perhaps I can tell you of an Ultra about to come onto market you may really be interested in. TBM feevor has struck again!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

I have been asked how many USC cheerleaders will fit in a new Ultra. The answer is none, it doesnt burn Jet A

 

Real usc cheerleaders?  Or the ones that mommy and daddy paid for in the admissions scandal...  ;)

I guess it doesn’t matter... they are all probably burning Jet A.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, StevenL757 said:

It’s quite significant.  Among other items, a reman engine on the Ovation is in the ballpark of $42k.  The TSIO550 on the Acclaim will run you well north of $82k.  If you don’t manage the Acclaim engine properly, you’ll wind up blowing through cylinders every few hundred hours.  I’ve seen plenty of them come through my IA’s shop that have been through several sets of cylinders where their engines have had less than 1000 hours.

I am not an Acclaim driver, but I saw them go through my mechanics shop.  However, there was a cause, or actually, two.  One, there was a known issue where the breather was tubed into the exhaust.  It would coke up, causing back pressure in the engine.  Cylinders were replaced at as little as 400 hours.  That was taken care of, or so I was told. Two, pilots would operate them in fire-breathing dragon mode, meaning full throttle, full power because, well, the engine was rated to operate continuously at max power, and that’s how you got the max rated airspeed at max altitude.  No one said you would get any engine life though.  Frankly I would love to have an Acclaim. The two real issues in my mind, are that most of them had very little useful load, and they had integrated avionics suites that cost 100k to upgrade when the time comes.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a good question.  As much as I'd love to say my Rocket is "faster than an Acclaim", I wouldn't bet on it.  I haven't looked at an Acclaim close up, but from pics on Controller that thing looks a lot smoother all over to me.  I think the cowling and the whole shape of the nose looks lower drag, I suspect the slightly larger "winglets" on the wingtips are lower drag, and I suspect there are some other minor aero changes that add up to 10-15 knots more speed than the Rocket can do regardless of HP.

Just a guess though...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.