Looking at an Oviation

[N9405V]

I’ve been looking to upgrade and I think I’ve found the Oviation that I like. Going through the logs it seems like the current owner has been replacing tires and brake pads on a very regular basis. Is this an airframe or operator issue?

 

Also, what are most Oviations seeing for real world fuel flows?

 

Thanks!

Wade

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Niko182]

7 minutes ago, N9405V said:

 

I’ve been looking to upgrade and I think I’ve found the Oviation that I like. Going through the logs it seems like the current owner has been replacing tires and brake pads on a very regular basis. Is this an airframe or operator issue?

 

Also, what are most Oviations seeing for real world fuel flows?

 

Thanks!

Wade

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Regarding brakes and tires, no. I flew 300 hours over ownership and tires have been replaced when the plane was bought. they are due for a new set now. but, I always try to land as short as possible as a challenge against myself, but I think 300 hours is more than reasonable on a set of tires.

regarding to fuel flows, really depends on AC, TKS, or none. The Ovation will hold its normal cruising speed pretty well up to altitude. you can expect 180knots all the way to the mid flight levels. at 8k that seems to be around 14 gallons peak at 65 - 70 percent power and that gets me right around 180 to 183. go up higher and the fuel flow goes down. I've been at 14k once, and it was keeping that airspeed at like 12.5 to 13 gallons.

[carusoam]

What size runway is it based at?

 

The O is a bit heavier, and lands 15% faster than shorter Mooneys...

But the need to use the brakes any differently isn’t there...

 

My usual flights around 10 - 12k’...

ROP 175kts 15gph

LOP 165kts 12gph

I am a fan of the LOP, and cool cylinders...

O3 powered allows some increases as cruise rpm increases to 2550... or 2700 depending on PIC.

Best regards,

-a-

[StevenL757]

4 hours ago, N9405V said:

I’ve been looking to upgrade and I think I’ve found the Oviation that I like. Going through the logs it seems like the current owner has been replacing tires and brake pads on a very regular basis. Is this an airframe or operator issue?

Also, what are most Oviations seeing for real world fuel flows?

Thanks!

Wade

Congrats on considering an Ovation.  You won’t regret your decision to own the flagship of the Mooney N/A fleet.

Regarding tire usage, how “regular” is regular replacement?  Tire and brake lining wear depends on several factors...frequency of use, how hard you brake, brand of tires purchased, maintaining correct pressures, and other factors.

Fuel flows expressed above are pretty close to real-world.  Realistically, you can expect ~13.4gph at 8000 feet, 172KTAS, 50 LOP, 2550RPM on a TKS-equipped airplane with no air conditioning - as mine is equipped - as a baseline for your question.

Would be nice to hear about your mission profile and how you arrived at your decision to go with an Ovation.  Again, congrats and let us know (as appropriate) how it goes throughout your acquisition experience.  Drop me a PM if I can help you with a prebuy.

Steve

[TGreen]

1 hour ago, carusoam said:

 

My usual flights around 10 - 12k’...

ROP 175kts 15gph

LOP 165kts 12gph

I am a fan of the LOP, and cool cylinders...

 

me too

[Guest]

That tire wear/ replacement suggests a few things to me, poor pilot technique, seized or stiff brake calipers, or mis adjusted brake pedals causing the pilot to inadvertently apply brakes while landing.

Clarence

 

[N9405V]

I really had not been looking for a replacement plane, but over the past two years it seems like all I’ve been doing is replacing items mainly because they are failing due to age. I’ve been frustrated because there are some upgrades I’ve been wanting to do and all these other repairs have cut into that budget. My significant other made the suggestion of looking at how much money we’d spend on the upgrades vs using that for a down payment for a newer airframe that already had what I wanted avionics wise. So I started looking and found an Oviation that has every thing I could ask for, plus air conditioning, and to my surprise the numbers work and are reasonable.

I’m based in Austin, TX so getting up and over mountains is not a big concern for me, plus I didn’t want to maintain a turbo. Typical mission will be 300-500 miles with a few longer trips to California or the northeast tossed in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bravoman]

1 hour ago, N9405V said:

I really had not been looking for a replacement plane, but over the past two years it seems like all I’ve been doing is replacing items mainly because they are failing due to age. I’ve been frustrated because there are some upgrades I’ve been wanting to do and all these other repairs have cut into that budget. My significant other made the suggestion of looking at how much money we’d spend on the upgrades vs using that for a down payment for a newer airframe that already had what I wanted avionics wise. So I started looking and found an Oviation that has every thing I could ask for, plus air conditioning, and to my surprise the numbers work and are reasonable.

I’m based in Austin, TX so getting up and over mountains is not a big concern for me, plus I didn’t want to maintain a turbo. Typical mission will be 300-500 miles with a few longer trips to California or the northeast tossed in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Turbo maintenance is a non issue. With that profile I would definitely consider it. I sort of stumbled into the turbo world but now that I’m here I think it’s the way to go.

[carusoam]

After a decade of ownership...

My M20C was getting things replaced a second time.

What we learned in that decade was that GA and Mooneys really worked out for us.

The next step was to get something with more capability.

 

The O is a bigger faster newer modern C...

Designed and built for basic IMC, with a FIKI option.

We had started looking at Js and Missiles for comparison... the 08 economy handed us the O instead...

Luck met preparation... went to see David at AAA...

We have had the O for a decade...

No surprises.

Go Mooney!

Best regards,

-a-

[Davidv]

You should ask the owner if he uses those pedal things on the ground while on short final to align the nose with those stripes. 
 

With proper landing technique tires should not wear out very quickly.  Consider the average plane flying 150 hrs per year (being generous), at 1 hr flights that would be 150 takeoffs and landings.  Let’s assume 3000 ft landing distance plus 1000 ft takeoff distance plus 5000 for taxi round trip.

takeoffs: 150*1000/5280 = 28 miles

landings 150*3000/5280 = 85 miles

taxi 150*5000/5280 = 142 miles

So, we will put around 250 miles per year on our tires in this scenario. Yes, there are impact forces that go with airplanes that cannot be equated to car tires, but we should not be running our airplane tires any faster than we would a car tire.  My point is that it’s more about how the tires are treated than any specific wear because if landed gently they should last a very long time.

Edited March 1, 2020 by Davidv

[MIm20c]

If you want an ovation as an upgrade I think it’s a great idea. However, if you’re looking to save money on maintenance that is a pipe dream. The older short bodies have lots of small cheap things that break all the time. But the long bodies can take a chunk out of the pocket book. Most of them are 20-25 years old and still have the original hoses, engine mounts, and in extreme cases donuts. I’ve found the popular MSC’s are more aggressive on billable hours and the systems are more expensive to maintain.

[PMcClure]

12 minutes ago, MIm20c said:

If you want an ovation as an upgrade I think it’s a great idea. However, if you’re looking to save money on maintenance that is a pipe dream. The older short bodies have lots of small cheap things that break all the time. But the long bodies can take a chunk out of the pocket book. Most of them are 20-25 years old and still have the original hoses, engine mounts, and in extreme cases donuts. I’ve found the popular MSC’s are more aggressive on billable hours and the systems are more expensive to maintain.

Cheapest flying i ever did was in my 69F model. It took a lot of hands on maintenance time but most fixes were in the hundreds of dollars. That said, the maintenance cost of the ovation isn't that much different, not counting new avionics. The engine replacement fund will need to be higher. 

[StevenL757]

2 hours ago, MIm20c said:

If you want an ovation as an upgrade I think it’s a great idea. However, if you’re looking to save money on maintenance that is a pipe dream. The older short bodies have lots of small cheap things that break all the time. But the long bodies can take a chunk out of the pocket book. Most of them are 20-25 years old and still have the original hoses, engine mounts, and in extreme cases donuts. I’ve found the popular MSC’s are more aggressive on billable hours and the systems are more expensive to maintain.

Partially true, but it depends largely on how you personally choose to manage your maintenance.  For me, once you decide to refresh things like what you describe, your recurrent costs go down.  My factory rebuilt engine and new prop in 2014 included new hoses and engine mounts, and since then, the only items in my engine logbook have been oil changes and annual inspections.  Overall annual costs since then have been consistent...averaging around 3,600 a year, and I’ve only increased that number by adding optional and “cosmetic” things.  When you wait until things break and/or become airworthy, the bill will be a shock no matter what model you own.

I invest small amounts throughout the year to help bring the overall annual costs down.  Barring any unforeseen items, the airplane essentially gets everything it needs from a proactive standpoint.  I thank my mechanic constantly for working with me to educate me and help me maintain the airplane properly.  It’s an incredible relationship.  Although I know a few on here experience this, I wish everyone could do the same.

[LANCECASPER]

18 hours ago, N9405V said:

 

I’ve been looking to upgrade and I think I’ve found the Oviation that I like. Going through the logs it seems like the current owner has been replacing tires and brake pads on a very regular basis. Is this an airframe or operator issue?

Also, what are most Oviations seeing for real world fuel flows

I think you're combining Ovation with Aviation and coming up with Oviation.  It's Ovation, not Oviation and definitely not Ovulation, although buying a nice one might feel like giving birth. 

I owned an Ovation for a year after owning four different turbo Mooneys previously, I loved the panel upgrade that it had and loved the air conditioning but really missed the Turbo. I own a turbo Mooney (Bravo) again.

[carusoam]

For added spice...

Change it’s power to weight ratio.

Go 310hp.

Get stronger performance in T/O distance and climb rate.

Then dial it back for its usual awesome cruise numbers.

 

This is a fancy step up for a trio of planes... O, Eagle, and Acclaim.

When done in conjunction with OH, the extra cost (percentage-wise) is nearly a wash... (work with me on the definition of this one)

Best regards,

-a-

[N9405V]

For added spice...
Change it’s power to weight ratio.
Go 310hp.
Get stronger performance in T/O distance and climb rate.
Then dial it back for its usual awesome cruise numbers.
 
This is a fancy step up for a trio of planes... O, Eagle, and Acclaim.
When done in conjunction with OH, the extra cost (percentage-wise) is nearly a wash... (work with me on the definition of this one)
Best regards,
-a-

The one I’m looking at has the 310hp conversion, G1000 upgraded to WAAS, VNAV, GFC700, and SVT and, the favorite of my significant other, air conditioning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[N9405V]

I think you're combining Ovation with Aviation and coming up with Oviation.  It's Ovation, not Oviation and definitely not Ovulation, although buying a nice one might feel like giving birth. 
I owned an Ovation for a year after owning four different turbo Mooneys previously, I loved the panel upgrade that it had and loved the air conditioning but really missed the Turbo. I own a turbo Mooney (Bravo) again.

Ha! I never claimed to be an English major. I’ve never owned a turbo and all the guys I know that have turbos seem to have issues. I’m taking baby steps up the food chain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gsxrpilot]

5 minutes ago, N9405V said:

I’ve never owned a turbo and all the guys I know that have turbos seem to have issues.

Except me of course 

[N9405V]

Except me of course 

True!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[larrynimmo]

15 hours ago, M20Doc said:

That tire wear/ replacement suggests a few things to me, poor pilot technique, seized or stiff brake calipers, or mis adjusted brake pedals causing the pilot to inadvertently apply brakes while landing.

Clarence

 

I don’t do much better than 400 hours for tires and brakes...practicing short field landing really takes a toll on both....and I will add that I only replaced the pads and not the rotors.  Next brake job I’ll do both...and I do this under supervision and assistance of an AI.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, larrynimmo said:

I don’t do much better than 400 hours for tires and brakes...practicing short field landing really takes a toll on both....and I will add that I only replaced the pads and not the rotors.  Next brake job I’ll do both...and I do this under supervision and assistance of an AI.

Seems odd to me.  I have 500 hours on my Goodyear FC3 mains on my 3600 lb. Comanche and they’re about half worn out and I routinely make the 1000’ turn off.

Clarence

[PMcClure]

I had to sell the turbo bo because it was consuming the children’s college fund in fuel and maintenance cost!

[ilovecornfields]

20 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

Seems odd to me.  I have 500 hours on my Goodyear FC3 mains on my 3600 lb. Comanche and they’re about half worn out and I routinely make the 100’ turn off.

Clarence

Wow! 100 ft. Do you have a STOL kit on that Comanche? 

[Guest]

Just now, ilovecornfields said:

Wow! 100 ft. Do you have a STOL kit on that Comanche? 

Fingers and brain not connected, should be 1000’

Clarence

[Jeff_S]

The OP's buying target sounds like a nicely equipped Ovation...just like mine except I still have the S-TEC 55x A/P.

Regarding tires and brakes, that does sound like a pilot technique issue.  One question regarding brakes is whether or not the engine is set to idle correctly. I've heard tales of some engines that wouldn't idle well, so they were taxied and landed at too-high power settings and the brakes were used excessively.  That's something you can check out. Also, weirdly, big feet can play a role.  I have size 14s, and I find myself having to consciously keep my toes off the brakes while taxiing.  Who'd a thunk?

My real-world fuel use echos that shown above. I flight plan at 175 KTAS and 13.5 GPH, LOP.  That's about right between 8-10K'.  Lower than that I'll burn a bit more, higher than that a bit less.

But for kick-ass racing speed I burn 22 GPH down low and have seen 197 KTAS over a closed course at 1000' AGL.  Alas, I still got smoked by a Lancair IV with the same engine but clocking 225 KTAS over the circuit.  Now I frequently check the back pages of Trade-a-Plane...