real world performance differences between Acclaim and Ovation

[mike_elliott]

12 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

How does the performance of a Rocket compare to that of an Acclaim? I would think that at the same HP, or even more for a Rocket, and it being a mid-body. Would the Rocket be faster than the Acclaim?

A rocket is a poor man's Acclaim, but no, wont do the 242 kts the Acclaim has achieved, Paul.

[carusoam]

The Long Bodies got that next level of aerodynamics...  just a shade tidier... when you get a chance, see how they sealed up around the tail...

The Ultras seem to have taken it to the next step... feathered seams... everywhere, not just where the composite panels are...

The biggest difference with the LBs... Longer nose, bigger baggage area... and a stack of lead that wants to be replaced by a FIKI system... 

Best regards,

-a-

 

[aviatoreb]

38 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

A rocket is a poor man's Acclaim, but no, wont do the 242 kts the Acclaim has achieved, Paul.

Will the acclaim really do 242 at max take off power at max altitude (even if not a cruise setting)?  Have you ever tried?

I have never actually pushed my rocket past 75% at FL24 (actually I was only up there once) or FL23 (been up there one hand full of fingers - no thumb) times or FL19/20/21 many times.

[exM20K]

6 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Will the acclaim really do 242 at max take off power at max altitude (even if not a cruise setting)?  Have you ever tried?

I have never actually pushed my rocket past 75% at FL24 (actually I was only up there once) or FL23 (been up there one hand full of fingers - no thumb) times or FL19/20/21 many times.

Mine won’t. TKS costs 8-10 KTAS.  But even a clean-wing Acclaim would require the right temperature and some time to accelerate. The only valid measurement for bragging rights is the 3 or 4 leg gps test.  IAS -> CAS -> TAS has so much error and adjustment, though in the type S POH, Mooney did get some add-backs in airspeed included. 
 

It is a very fast airplane, and especially with the 310 HP STC, one that can reach the flight levels in a reasonable time.  In this respect, it has no peers.  But would I ever fly it at the power settings required for max speed at any altitude?  Nope.

-dan

[StevenL757]

1 hour ago, PJClark said:

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...

And you’d be guessing correctly.  :-)

[carusoam]

Interesting... the note for speed lost/gained related to the step... 1KTAS.

thanks for sharing the details, Dan.

Best regards,

-a-

[mike_elliott]

Will the acclaim really do 242 at max take off power at max altitude (even if not a cruise setting)?  Have you ever tried?
I have never actually pushed my rocket past 75% at FL24 (actually I was only up there once) or FL23 (been up there one hand full of fingers - no thumb) times or FL19/20/21 many times.

Yes it will, that's how Mooney came up with the speed. No, I have never tried, Im old and don't care to fly at FL25 in a non pressurized.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[aviatoreb]

11 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

Yes it will, that's how Mooney came up with the speed. No, I have never tried, Im old and don't care to fly at FL25 in a non pressurized.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 

I have no doubt they flow an acclaim at the advertised speed.  But was it a special setup - minimal antenna, minimal fuel, no tks or ac, and a single pilot who is 101lbs soaking wet and a pro Jockey on the side?

E

[mike_elliott]

43 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

I have no doubt they flow an acclaim at the advertised speed.  But was it a special setup - minimal antenna, minimal fuel, no tks or ac, and a single pilot who is 101lbs soaking wet and a  pro Jockey on the side?

E

Eric, it is my understanding it was a production plane, each of them are "hand tweaked" as best they can be for speed. It had the Garmin antenna's on it and it did have a pro jockey who weighs about 170 I would guess at the helm. Fuel I am sure was minimized for weight. I highly doubt they put in the tow bar, clothes for a week etc. as why would you when you are trying to see what speed your production plane achieves? 

If your Rocket had all the aero improvements the Acclaim has, perhaps it too could attain that speed. Thats where the speed comes from, not the fact a pro pilot knows how to push all the money knobs forward

 

[aviatoreb]

1 minute ago, mike_elliott said:

... not the fact a pro pilot knows how to push all the money knobs forward

 

As they say in Spinal Tap - this one goes to 11!

I have read that the rocket advertised a speed of 248TAS and I bet the souped up some latest model 252 to do it - and even that era plane did not have the speed mods of the acclaim.

I figure my personal plane would do maybe 230. if I were to try the full take off power trick at full altitude which must be pretty hard on the engine to run that hard in the thin air.  I have seen 220 TAS I think at FL23.  I have seem 327GS but that's a different matter when talking about winds.  A balloon will do 200GS with a 200kts tail wind!

[exM20K]

18 hours ago, carusoam said:

Interesting... the note for speed lost/gained related to the step... 1KTAS.

thanks for sharing the details, Dan.

Best regards,

-a-

My W&B shows the removable step as installed, but I could never get it off the plane.  Asked DMAX to pull it at the last annual.  He did what I asked, but the step was not the removable one.  Oh well.

 

There was no perceptible speed gain, and my wife hated not having the step missing, so back on it went. 
 

I’d  discourage anyone from removing their step, kit or no kit.
-dan

Edited February 20, 2020 by exM20K

[jlunseth]

What pilots can't understand in a tangible, not theoretical way, unless they have been up in the flight levels, is how poor the cooling is.  18k is 1/2 ATM. 25k it is down to .37.  Not much air to transfer heat to. Its fun to go up that high (mine goes to 24k) to say you have done it, but those who have over a period of time invariably find that full power, full throttle is a bad idea, and the plane is happier and nearly as fast just a few thousand feet lower.  If you are paying for the cylinders and overhauls and don't have an unlimited pocketbook, it makes more sense. The Acclaim has better cooling than the older models, so I am told, but even an Acclaim is subject to the laws of physics. 

[gsxrpilot]

40 minutes ago, jlunseth said:

What pilots can't understand in a tangible, not theoretical way, unless they have been up in the flight levels, is how poor the cooling is.  18k is 1/2 ATM. 25k it is down to .37.  Not much air to transfer heat to. Its fun to go up that high (mine goes to 24k) to say you have done it, but those who have over a period of time invariably find that full power, full throttle is a bad idea, and the plane is happier and nearly as fast just a few thousand feet lower.  If you are paying for the cylinders and overhauls and don't have an unlimited pocketbook, it makes more sense. The Acclaim has better cooling than the older models, so I am told, but even an Acclaim is subject to the laws of physics. 

Correct. I've been at FL260 in my 252 a few times and I have to keep the cowl flaps open and am only running 65 to 70% power. It's hard to keep it cool up there even though the OAT is -25C.

[1980Mooney]

On 3/11/2016 at 11:04 PM, ArtVandelay said:

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.

FIKI or A/C adds about 50-70 lbs each.  This brings the Useful Load of an Acclaim down to 850-860 lbs. (barely 800 with both).  With full fuel (89 gal) payload is about 320 lbs with one of the desired options, 260-270 lbs with both.  That makes it basically a two people with baggage airplane.

Looking at the pictures online of the new Acclaim Ultras, I haven't seen any with FIKI.   I suspect that for $800-900 K the new buyers optioned A/C at the very least leaving little useful load to sacrifice.

https://www.aviationconsumer.com/industry-news/editorial/mooney-acclaim-ultra-tops-in-raw-speed/

Edited February 20, 2020 by 1980Mooney

[aviatoreb]

19 hours ago, PJClark said:

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...

Other than the STC process standing in the way of modding our certified planes - I bet engineering wise a lot of the Acclaim's best aero mods could otherwise be fitted to a rocket - cowl, wing tips, etc sure would speed up our little airplanes.

[Niko182]

20 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

How does the performance of a Rocket compare to that of an Acclaim? I would think that at the same HP, or even more for a Rocket, and it being a mid-body. Would the Rocket be faster than the Acclaim?

The acclaim has a couple clean ups on the cowling and prop. I figure if you get a hartzell acclaim prop on there, it would be really close 

[exM20K]

Flew to Springfield today at Ovation-friendly altitudes in the acclaim.  The attached photos of the (dusty) panel tell the tale:  at 70ish percent power, TN I going faster on quite a bit more fuel.  That’s the penalty for low compression cylinders. The attached photos will probably be upside down...I just can’t help it. 
-dan

[PJClark]

Huh.  If I'm  reading that right it's 180 KTAS at 7500 on 18gph?  My Rocket will be very, very close to that...

[exM20K]

Check the temperature if you can see it.  Very cold today... more typically 185+ at lower fuel flow. 

[PJClark]

That makes more sense.  Your better aero should crush me at that altitude

[M016576]

5 hours ago, PJClark said:

Huh.  If I'm  reading that right it's 180 KTAS at 7500 on 18gph?  My Rocket will be very, very close to that...

My TKS’d Missile is as well, just in slightly less fuel, at that altitude. (Don’t bring a turbo to a low-altitude NA speed fight.... calling all O’s and missiles... @carusoam!

[mike_elliott]

7 hours ago, M016576 said:

My TKS’d Missile is as well, just in slightly less fuel, at that altitude. (Don’t bring a turbo to a low-altitude NA speed fight.... calling all O’s and missiles... @carusoam!

real world stuff...here is an Acclaim at 11800, 21 GPH 202KTAS,

And the same plane 8000, 182ktas, 16 GPH

 

THen there is this speed demon, cruising level in the yellow at 10K, 213 KTAS

 

Now for an O (this one is not an Ultra, will get that soon)

8000, 178 on 12.5

 

And lastly, for those of you who say its all about the ground speed, thats what determines how long the flight will be....there is this in an acclaim (bring it on Rokets!)

 

[M016576]

353Kts?  You sure that isn’t a TBM?

[aviatoreb]

2 hours ago, M016576 said:

353Kts?  You sure that isn’t a TBM?

I did 327GS once.

[aviatoreb]

2 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

real world stuff...here is an Acclaim at 11800, 21 GPH 202KTAS,

And the same plane 8000, 182ktas, 16 GPH

 

THen there is this speed demon, cruising level in the yellow at 10K, 213 KTAS

 

Now for an O (this one is not an Ultra, will get that soon)

8000, 178 on 12.5

 

And lastly, for those of you who say its all about the ground speed, thats what determines how long the flight will be....there is this in an acclaim (bring it on Rokets!)

 

Ok - I call uncle.  That Acclaim is FASTER than my personal rocket.

But not dramatically so.  Well - yes dramatically so on the same fuel burn since that engine is furthermore more efficient than my rocket, but on standard cruise settings 65% (book says 18gph) and 72% (20gph) and 75% (21gph) my speeds are slower than that acclaim, but not a lot so.  Reasonably close.  I am burning 65% and you are I bet we are pretty close -  But if you are burning 21gph and I am burning 21gph then you are going quite a fair bit faster.