AvWeb Video Review of the New Acclaim

[kmyfm20s]

7 hours ago, teejayevans said:

But they are restricting it anyway?

In addition to the cylinders the Accliam also have the intercoolers which require just about as much air volume to cool.

[smccray]

8 hours ago, Joe Zuffoletto said:

Nice successor to the Acclaim Type S. Here are my comments as a former Acclaim owner:

I'm disappointed they didn't bump the engine to 310hp. I had that mod on my Acclaim and it made an incredible difference in takeoff and climb performance. Not to mention it would give them another box to tick against Cirrus.

I chafe a little bit at the useful load criticism this plane always gets. I had 102 gallon tanks and never had a useful load problem. Why? Because these planes are so fuel efficient in the flight levels, especially LOP, that you rarely need to haul 102 or even 90 gallons of gas. I was able to get safely and comfortably from Napa to Orange County with just 60 gallons on board, and I'd still have an hour of fuel in the tanks when I landed. This allowed me to carry more people or more stuff if I wanted. The only times I topped off were for flights to/from Denver and the West Coast, or to/from Denver and Cabo. Even then I could still bring my wife and two carry-on sized rollie bags.

 The lack of a pilot's side door never bothered me. It made the business side of the cockpit much quieter and less drafty than the passenger side when cruising high and fast in cold air. However, adding the door allowed them to add the FMS keypad, which is a big plus.

No need to trim the nose up in the flare - it's already there! The Acclaim is so nose-heavy at approach speeds that the elevator trim is nearly full aft at touchdown. This means you'd better be very careful in a go-around, or you'll enter a departure stall with the nose WAY up. My technique was to dial throttle in gradually until positive rate of climb was achieved, then raise the gear, slowly add more throttle and crank the trim wheel forward like a mad man until the plane is properly set up for climb-out. The trim wheel motor isn't nearly fast enough to keep up.

 I've never owned a turbo Mooney without TKS, and after some of the icing encounters I've had over the Western US and mainland Mexico over the years, I never would. It adds tremendous dispatch flexibility and safety margin to the airplane.

I sometimes miss my Acclaim, but I'm grateful for the 7 fantastic years I got to fly it.

  

 

54 minutes ago, Joe Zuffoletto said:

Has anyone read my post besides gsengle? 102 gallons is an option, not a requirement. Believe it or not, the plane will fly with much less fuel, depending on your mission. 

Okay- I'll bite...

I agree with you on the second door.  I would have liked a second door but it's not a primary driver of any airplane purchase for me.  The keypad is a big deal though- I wish Garmin would offer that in their retrofit systems.  All things being equal I would choose the door vs the climb in and shimmy across, but it doesn't really matter as I'm not a new airplane buyer anyway.

I do think Mooney should have tried to put the Mustang gear on the ultra aircraft.

Useful load- It matters.  The lack of useful load probably doesn't dramatically affect most missions in 4 place piston aircraft.  However- we can't on one hand advocate the old adage that you never have too much fuel unless you're on fire, then say that we don't have to fly full fuel.  You don't have to, but not being fuel limited offers nice flexibility when planning.  The lack of useful load in many 4 seat piston aircraft is a problem; it may just be a problem of perception, but it's a problem nonetheless.  It's a bigger problem selling against a SR22 turbo.  I'm definitely a mooniac, but if I were looking at a new single engine piston plane I would have a hard time not buying the Cirrus.

For my own upgrade, I considered a Mooney Bravo, but price tags didn't make sense to me considering the incremental operating cost.  Some of that is being based at a high cost airport (fuel north of $7 per gallon).  I was about to buy an Ovation primarily to address my own transportation need, but my wife wanted to be able to load up and go somewhere in the plane.  My wife and a child, (days away from our second) presents a challenge in the Mooney to make the trip from Dallas to Denver where her family lives.  Any Mooney, particularly any long body Mooney, would have a hard time making that flight staying under the legal gross weight.  That's a different problem, and any Mooney would have had a hard time fulfilling that mission (4 people and bags 600 miles).

Nevertheless, the question isn't whether the Mooney is a fit for me- it's a question of whether useful load matters.  Humbly, I suggest that it does matter to most buyers... useful load is always on the list of questions to ask when making the first inquiry on any Mooney.

 

3 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

 I know a fellow who flew an acclaim s.  He claimed 205tas at 11-12k on that fuel flow.

That sounds more like it, although I would have expected 195-200.  Either way- the economy numbers in the table looked a little low.  Book on my new bird is 180 ktas at 12k ft which is probably correct.  I'm still getting comfortable in the plane.  Similar HP, lighter weight, lower drag coefficient- it makes a difference.

 

 

[Joe Zuffoletto]

smccray, first of all, congratulations on the impending arrival of your second child. 

Choose the airplane that makes the most sense for you and your family. 

 

[carusoam]

I think I would inquire about a longer wing...

My hangar has about room for another 5’ Of wingspan...

The additional span would generate the needed lift for all the extra fuel that it could carry...

The 102 gallon tanks were good for my family of four going 200nm to grandma’s house...

The tanks when filled were good for flying solo from NJ to the Mooney Summit, non-stop...

A six hundred mile flight? Two hour legs, for my family... young boys and girls using ziploc bags or Gbottles... I didn’t ever go that direction...  

With 1k+ LBs of UL... you decide how full the tanks should be... MGTOW is less than MGLW.... the place you are going may be a short runway...

PP thoughts only...

Best regards,

-a-