Aspen2013 Posted July 13, 2019 Report Share Posted July 13, 2019 I would like to know from those who have flown the Eagle or Ovation with the 310 HP upgrade how it performs up to altitudes of 18,000 ft. I read Flying magazine article "Turbo power without the turbo" I have 1979 M20K 231 with LB1B engine (intercooler and fixed wastegate) and was thinking of upgrading to a faster plane (around $200K ) Most of my flying is above 10,000 as I live in the vicinity of the rocky mountains. Thinking IO-550G with 30% power loss due to altitude still cranks out 217HP. At 18,000 50% power loss is 155HP. I am saying an average altitude would be 13,000 and thinking I would see TAS of 180kts or better. Second part to the question is how do these planes perform with the 4 bladed composite MT prop? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIm20c Posted July 13, 2019 Report Share Posted July 13, 2019 If you want better than 180 at 15k plus you’re probably going to need a bravo. Spent about a decade flying with the 310. It’s a nice setup but not to be confused with a turbo on hot days above 10k. We upgraded the normal three blade to the thin blade and recovered some of the TKS handicap. Heat is a problem with the tight cowl so it needs to be managed on the hot days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted July 13, 2019 Report Share Posted July 13, 2019 The only pirep for the MT-4 blade is probably Erik... on a Rocket... I briefly considered it when buying the TopProp... but the STC wasn’t done yet... the STC amazingly was finished a month or two later... As far as displacement vs. turbos goes... the turbo is going to help to maintain ‘excess’ power needed for climb... So cruising on 50% power is one thing... but climbing up there with minimal excess power can take a long time... Will you be flying below max gross a lot? Depending on the plane’s weight, the excess power available is an interesting part of the equation... I went with the O with no intention to climb above O2 levels... 310hp, it is still climbing strongly when it gets there... A 310hp Acclaim really makes sense... for that type of flying... PP thoughts only, not a CFI... Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aspen2013 Posted July 13, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2019 Usually takeoff weight is 2700-2800lbs. Takeoff is initially Vx then Vy =96 kts (maybe 800 ft/min) depending how fast I need to get to an altitude (clouds, OVC layer) then cruise climb 105 kts and usually 500fpm. Home field is at 6,800 ft. I would like to be able to consistently get over 1000 fpm climb getting up to 10,000 ft if possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted July 14, 2019 Report Share Posted July 14, 2019 TopProp, 310hp, 400LBs light of MTOW, and climbing to 12.5k’ there is plenty of excess HP... at seal level, initial climb rates can exceed 2k’pm... I think Byron posted a pic of it around here somewhere... But your specific question can only be answered by flying it... The Eagle is often 100# lighter than the O... allowing more opportunity to be lighter in the climb... the other nice thing... not just the extra cylinders... as they are DA sensitive... but the extra 200rpm which seems to be less DA sensitive... See if you can try one on for size... The take off roll, and initial climb rate are what the extra hp is about... Below 12.5k’ there is no replacement for displacement... Cruizin’ the flight levels... go TN. 65+%BHP. Doing it for business... go FIKI. And TN... Best regards, -a- 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niko182 Posted July 14, 2019 Report Share Posted July 14, 2019 3 hours ago, Aspen2013 said: I would like to know from those who have flown the Eagle or Ovation with the 310 HP upgrade how it performs up to altitudes of 18,000 ft. I read Flying magazine article "Turbo power without the turbo" I have 1979 M20K 231 with LB1B engine (intercooler and fixed wastegate) and was thinking of upgrading to a faster plane (around $200K ) Most of my flying is above 10,000 as I live in the vicinity of the rocky mountains. Thinking IO-550G with 30% power loss due to altitude still cranks out 217HP. At 18,000 50% power loss is 155HP. I am saying an average altitude would be 13,000 and thinking I would see TAS of 180kts or better. Second part to the question is how do these planes perform with the 4 bladed composite MT prop? If youre flying it at 13000ft, you should be able to get 180 knots without a problem as long as you have a clean and well rigged aircraft. at 17500ft, youll probably see around 175 to 176 knots. It is a very capable aircraft, but if you want to be in the teens, I'd personally look at an Acclaim, which no doubt will be hard to find at 200k. Bravos are also an option, but personally, I wouldnt look at them unless you plan on sticking a 4 blade MT prop on it, or until the new hartzell top prop is approved for it. I'm not a big fan of the Mccauley props for the LB mooneys. IMO they're slow, heavy, louder, and not the greatest takeoff distance. The MT and Hartzell do a much better job in those aspects. Bravos will do about 200knots at FL180 around 18GPH. Ovation / Eagle will do around 175knots on 10.5GPH at FL180. My eagle will do 183 to 185 knots at 14.1GPH peak EGT. that 2500/WOT" around 10000ft. Another option is an S35 or V35A/B or an F33 with a TAT on it. they're a little bit slower than the ovations, until about 10k ft. at FL18 they should be able to do 200ish knots to 210. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilovecornfields Posted July 14, 2019 Report Share Posted July 14, 2019 If your home field is 6800’ you want a turbo. I love my 310HP Ovation, but if I were at that altitude I would get a 252 Encore. Or an Acclaim. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenL757 Posted July 14, 2019 Report Share Posted July 14, 2019 3 hours ago, Aspen2013 said: I would like to know from those who have flown the Eagle or Ovation with the 310 HP upgrade how it performs up to altitudes of 18,000 ft. I read Flying magazine article "Turbo power without the turbo" I have 1979 M20K 231 with LB1B engine (intercooler and fixed wastegate) and was thinking of upgrading to a faster plane (around $200K ) Most of my flying is above 10,000 as I live in the vicinity of the rocky mountains. Thinking IO-550G with 30% power loss due to altitude still cranks out 217HP. At 18,000 50% power loss is 155HP. I am saying an average altitude would be 13,000 and thinking I would see TAS of 180kts or better. Second part to the question is how do these planes perform with the 4 bladed composite MT prop? I’ve read that article also. To your first question, I see climb rates of 200-300 ft/min through FL180. I generally take off with the full 2700rpm available, and through 1000ft AGL, pull back to 2550rpm. This keeps your CHTs nicely below 410, even in hot weather. As the air gets colder as you climb, you can always increase back to 2700 to help you get up there easier. There’s a noticeable difference between the 2500 and 2700rpm-equipped airplanes. The 310hp/2700rpm bump on my Ovation is one of the best moves I’ve ever made. Second point...you’re unlikely to see 180KTAS at 13000 unless you’re ROP, which I don’t recommend doing unless you’re flying in extremely cold weather. I won’t get into the LOP/ROP debate here...speak to me offline via PM for background on why I recommend what I do. Lastly, the only propeller that will gain you any speed advantage over the McCauley or the “standard” Hartzell F7693/ Df-2 is the Hartzell F7498...the same prop used on the Acclaim Type-S conversions. Although the MT 4-blade looks great and saves a bunch of weight, it sets your CG back to the point where your shock disks suffer premature wear. It also doesn’t provide any cruise speed increase over the F7498. Another member on this forum @Txbyker, can chime in here as to the validity of my MT observations. Rgds, Steve 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsxrpilot Posted July 14, 2019 Report Share Posted July 14, 2019 @SWL has a 4 blade MT on his Rocket. He might have some insight as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWL Posted July 14, 2019 Report Share Posted July 14, 2019 Paul and I flew the MT 4 blade on her maiden voyage - a short test flight out of KBJC in Broomfield CO. It was a hot June afternoon. With 400 lbs between us and 150 lbs behind, the M231k Rocket 305 (TSIO 520-NB) sporting the new MT 4 blade performed as expected. We climbed to traffic altitude at about 1,100 FPM with less than full power. I have yet to take the MT thru its paces at high altitude as 17L is working thru a couple of post inspection squawks. My weekly commute is Austin to Los Angeles at flight levels so I should have some good data to report back in the next few weeks. Paul and I both noticed with some surprise how much quieter the 4 blade was at run-up (compared to the previous 3 blade McCauly). With the $$$ spent and time invested waiting on Germany, I better be impressed! 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FoxMike Posted July 14, 2019 Report Share Posted July 14, 2019 If you are operating in the teens most of the time keep what you have. A NA engine just will not climb well enough above 13K. I owned a Baron many years ago that was was NA. Coming back to Denver from Cortez IFR, ATC ordered me up to 17K to go through the Powder approach gate. I was just past Gunnison and getting some rime. The Baron was booted and in that situation with just me in the airplane the best I could do was about 16.5K and it took a long time. I had a turbo Mooney sitting in the hangar at home and I wish I had it instead of the Baron. If you do not fly IFR maybe the lethargic climb is OK but I do not think an NA airplane works very well in the teens. I have a Bravo and put an MT on it a couple of years ago. Cruise is no better but takeoff and climb performance is noticeably better. The smoothness and quieter cabin are the best reasons to buy one. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted July 14, 2019 Report Share Posted July 14, 2019 +1 for quieter outside the cabin... 2700 RPM is so loud outside, on the ground... The Rocket with the MT four blade sounds completely different... Best regards, -a- 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alextstone Posted July 14, 2019 Report Share Posted July 14, 2019 I have a Bravo and put an MT on it a couple of years ago. Cruise is no better but takeoff and climb performance is noticeably better. The smoothness and quieter cabin are the best reasons to buy one. Would you please share some specifics on improved takeoff and climb performance with the MT prop on your Bravo? ThanksSent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted July 14, 2019 Report Share Posted July 14, 2019 42 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said: @SWL has a 4 blade MT on his Rocket. He might have some insight as well. Me too. e 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FoxMike Posted July 14, 2019 Report Share Posted July 14, 2019 I have not done any testing not even note taking so take this as just a wag. When I am climbing at 80-85 IAS the climb improvement looks to be about 10%. As I accelerate to cruise climb the differential declines. Unless I need to I do not use best rate for very long as the oil temp gets up to 215df quickly. My airplane lives under Class B so I need to step climb when going VFR. Takeoff performance is better but I would not hazard a guess at how much. The prop they use on the Continentals is different from mine so your mileage may vary. This 4 blade prop has a lot of low speed thrust. I use to taxi at 1000rpm. With the MT I use 800rpm. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HXG Posted July 14, 2019 Report Share Posted July 14, 2019 FoxMike, How much weight did the MT prop save you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FoxMike Posted July 14, 2019 Report Share Posted July 14, 2019 10 lbs. The reduced weight really helps in landing. I can hold the nose off down to stall speed. The LYC engine is really heavy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HXG Posted July 14, 2019 Report Share Posted July 14, 2019 Thanks. I will likely be adding MT prop to my bravo in the next year or 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FoxMike Posted July 14, 2019 Report Share Posted July 14, 2019 If you do order one be sure to get the nickel steel leading edge not stainless steel. Lead time for the order is about 4-5 months. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niko182 Posted July 14, 2019 Report Share Posted July 14, 2019 If I were you, I'd look at a Rocket and put a 4 blade MT on it. this would seems like it would cover all your mission requirements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cody Stallings Posted July 14, 2019 Report Share Posted July 14, 2019 1 hour ago, Niko182 said: If I were you, I'd look at a Rocket and put a 4 blade MT on it. this would seems like it would cover all your mission requirements. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted July 14, 2019 Report Share Posted July 14, 2019 Hmmm.... I wonder how much the prop guy likes his MT prop on his Rocket..? -a- 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cody Stallings Posted July 14, 2019 Report Share Posted July 14, 2019 1 hour ago, carusoam said: Hmmm.... I wonder how much the prop guy likes his MT prop on his Rocket..? -a- He doesn’t Have a MT Prop on his Rocket!!.......YET!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted July 14, 2019 Report Share Posted July 14, 2019 1 hour ago, Cody Stallings said: He doesn’t Have a MT Prop on his Rocket!!.......YET!! He should! I love the mt on mine! e 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austintatious Posted July 15, 2019 Report Share Posted July 15, 2019 22 hours ago, SWL said: Paul and I flew the MT 4 blade on her maiden voyage - a short test flight out of KBJC in Broomfield CO. It was a hot June afternoon. With 400 lbs between us and 150 lbs behind, the M231k Rocket 305 (TSIO 520-NB) sporting the new MT 4 blade performed as expected. We climbed to traffic altitude at about 1,100 FPM with less than full power. I have yet to take the MT thru its paces at high altitude as 17L is working thru a couple of post inspection squawks. My weekly commute is Austin to Los Angeles at flight levels so I should have some good data to report back in the next few weeks. Paul and I both noticed with some surprise how much quieter the 4 blade was at run-up (compared to the previous 3 blade McCauly). With the $$$ spent and time invested waiting on Germany, I better be impressed! I am so curious about the MT 4 blade. My reservation is the whole counterweight issue which seems to be an unknown. I cant shake the feeling that a field approval is required because Continental wont sign off on putting that prop on the TSIO520-NB. It would be completely awesome to have. Smoother and quieter with improved climb and the added benefit of a lighter front end ( which a rocket would benefit from!)... but until I can be assured that the counterweight issue is not an issue, I just cant fathom putting it on my ship. Do you have any information on this issue? We are sitting on a very low time prop (80 hours) and I feel like now would be a good time to upgrade as we could probably do well selling our prop to offset the cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.