ovation carbon cowl from Mooney

[flysamo]

thought I was done modify my ovation, now Mooney has mentioned a carbon cowl will be available, supposed to be lighter, talk about removing weight from the nose, wondering  how hard and expensive will it be to retrofit my ovation. will be interesting to see availability.

[mike_elliott]

Mooney introduced this at OSH in 2019, but did not elaborate on how much or when available. They did have a prototype to touch and feel in their display area. 

[ArtVandelay]

The cowling isn’t that heavy, what can they save, 10lbs?

[Shadrach]

7 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said:

The cowling isn’t that heavy, what can they save, 10lbs?

may be easier to manufacture?  Certainly a bit lighter. Shaving weight on any vehicle is typically the sum of many small changes unless you just gut it of most creature comforts.

[Seth]

1 hour ago, mike_elliott said:

Mooney introduced this at OSH in 2019, but did not elaborate on how much or when available. They did have a prototype to touch and feel in their display area. 

To echo on Mike's information, I lifted it with one hand. I was impressed how light it was. I think it's a 15 - 25 lbs savings, which may not seem like a lot, but it's on the nose, and that makes a difference!

We'll have to see the dollar amount to see what the true cost is and if it's worth it to individual owners, but I was impressed with it. I personally do not have an ovation. I would love to see this modification offered to earlier Mooney models, but I have not idea when or if that will be addressed.

-Seth

Edited September 4, 2020 by Seth

[Mooney in Oz]

11 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

Mooney introduced this at OSH in 2019, but did not elaborate on how much or when available. They did have a prototype to touch and feel in their display area. 

Hope this isn't a silly question, both top and bottom, or just the top cowl?

[bfreelove]

I have an M20L that has the IO-550 conversion with the Ovation cowling made from carbon fiber.  It's really well done and extremely light.  That being said I still needed to add the full 19lbs of charlie weights recently to get the CG away from the front of the envelope. I've never handled a fiberglass Ovation cowling but from my experience working with composites (especially cowlings) I would guess it saves around 5 lbs.  One downside is the carbon will wear out around the fasteners and need to be redone every so often.  

[kmyfm20s]

I’m sure it is more than a 12lbs savings. I ordered a carbon cowl for my little KitFox and for that plane they claim 12 lbs savngs over the fiberglass cowl. It is a much smaller cowl.

[Mark89114]

My guess on the price.....if less than 10AMU it would be a miracle.

 

[aviatoreb]

The biggest weight savings off the nose, and it is available today, is if you have some kind of metal prop to change it for a MT carbon/wood prop.  I saved about 35lbs off the very front end of the weight and balance, even further far forward than the cowl.  My guess is the carbon cowl when it comes, will be terrific, but it will be comparably priced as a new prop that you can buy today, and the MT prop has many benefits besides weight.  But on weight alone, it is more weight than the cowl we are talking about, and also certainly significant balance improvements.  And ground clearance, and looks, and smoothness, and quietness, and looks.

Two days ago, I saw on the ramp at KLKP an Acclaim with the MT 4 blade so I parked my rocket w 4 blade in front and I took a picture that is posted over on the 2020 flights thread.

Edited September 5, 2020 by aviatoreb

[Hank]

23 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

The biggest weight savings off the nose, and it is available today, is if you have some kind of metal prop to change it for a MT carbon/wood prop.  I saved about 35lbs off the very front end of the weight and balance, even further far forward than the cowl.  My guess is the carbon cowl when it comes, will be terrific, but it will be comparably priced as a new prop that you can buy today, and the MT prop has many benefits besides weight.  But on weight alone, it is more weight than the cowl we are talking about, and also certainly significant balance improvements.  And ground clearance, and looks, and smoothness, and quietness, and looks.

Two days ago, I saw on the ramp at KLKP an Acclaim with the MT 4 blade so I parked my rocket w 4 blade in front and I took a picture that is posted over on the 2020 flights thread.

Hmmm . . . "Everyone" says that a 4-cylinder engine shouldn't have a 3-blade prop, although mine is pretty smooth. Something about balance, vibration, cylinders-to-blades mismatch, etc., but mine is dynamically balanced to 0.01 ips.

Is 180 hp enough to turn that lightweight 4-blade MT prop? One blade per cylinder should be easier to balance than the one blade per 1.33 cylinders that I have now, or even the one blade per 1.5 cylinders that you and that Acclaim have . . . . And as you say, that aluminum Hartzell is pretty heavy.

        

But dang it, they sure do look good!!

[aviatoreb]

Just now, Hank said:

Hmmm . . . "Everyone" says that a 4-cylinder engine shouldn't have a 3-blade prop, although mine is pretty smooth. Something about balance, vibration, cylinders-to-blades mismatch, etc., but mine is dynamically balanced to 0.01 ips.

Is 180 hp enough to turn that lightweight 4-blade MT prop? One blade per cylinder should be easier to balance than the one blade per 1.33 cylinders that I have now, or even the one blade per 1.5 cylinders that you and that Acclaim have . . . . And as you say, that aluminum Hartzell is pretty heavy.

        

But dang it, they sure do look good!!

I don't think the 4 blade can go with the 4 cylinder.  I don;'t know the details and take what I say with the grain of salt that I know full well that I am just speculating - I think props are designed for a certain amount of horsepower-> thrust and the 4 blade is meant to go with a big bore 6 cylinder.

My point was more generally that the MT props are less heavy than the metal props and this offers a lot of weight savings - and balance savings too - comparable to a carbon cowl - and it is available today at might well be comparable in price.  Of course nothing against doing both upgrades if available.

I agree with your analysis - if a 3 blade on a 4 cylinder does increase vibration, then that would be bad, but if in practice your specific 3 blade (MT) has lowered vibration or is anyway very low vibration, felt and measured, then this is surely a non issue.

[xavierde]

10 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

I don't think the 4 blade can go with the 4 cylinder.  I don;'t know the details and take what I say with the grain of salt that I know full well that I am just speculating - I think props are designed for a certain amount of horsepower-> thrust and the 4 blade is meant to go with a big bore 6 cylinder.

My point was more generally that the MT props are less heavy than the metal props and this offers a lot of weight savings - and balance savings too - comparable to a carbon cowl - and it is available today at might well be comparable in price.  Of course nothing against doing both upgrades if available.

I agree with your analysis - if a 3 blade on a 4 cylinder does increase vibration, then that would be bad, but if in practice your specific 3 blade (MT) has lowered vibration or is anyway very low vibration, felt and measured, then this is surely a non issue.

You are correct. I've asked MT a couple of months ago for my 252 and the 4-blade isn't STC'ed for smaller engines. The 3-blade still looks like a good option though.

[aviatoreb]

32 minutes ago, xavierde said:

You are correct. I've asked MT a couple of months ago for my 252 and the 4-blade isn't STC'ed for smaller engines. The 3-blade still looks like a good option though.

For all the performance reasons, weight, balance, clearance, I think a 3. blade MT is a great option for a TSIO360 airplane.

[Urs_Wildermuth]

On 9/5/2020 at 4:59 PM, Hank said:

Is 180 hp enough to turn that lightweight 4-blade MT prop?

I sent my prop (Hartzell) to MT for overhaul and asked them at the time, if one of theirs was STC'd for the C model. It wasn't, only for the IO360 powered Mooneys.

[Ragsf15e]

On 9/5/2020 at 7:25 AM, aviatoreb said:

The biggest weight savings off the nose, and it is available today, is if you have some kind of metal prop to change it for a MT carbon/wood prop.  I saved about 35lbs off the very front end of the weight and balance, even further far forward than the cowl.  My guess is the carbon cowl when it comes, will be terrific, but it will be comparably priced as a new prop that you can buy today, and the MT prop has many benefits besides weight.  But on weight alone, it is more weight than the cowl we are talking about, and also certainly significant balance improvements.  And ground clearance, and looks, and smoothness, and quietness, and looks.

Two days ago, I saw on the ramp at KLKP an Acclaim with the MT 4 blade so I parked my rocket w 4 blade in front and I took a picture that is posted over on the 2020 flights thread.

If you do this and save weight in the nose, can you remove some charlie weights for bonus UL increase?

[carusoam]

Speaking of weight on the nose...

The TopProp hub is heavier than the others...

Light weight blades are a good idea...

So is a light weight hub to go with them...

 

If you have Charlie weights in the tail... every pound off the nose is going to net a positive result being removed from the back...  at a ratio of the arms...

 

Everyone would benefit if we could remove the cowl and have a look.... the current cowl has been too heavy to practice proper removal.

 

Speaking of new cowl design... it would be good to open something to have a look...  

Best regards,

-a-

[aviatoreb]

11 hours ago, Ragsf15e said:

If you do this and save weight in the nose, can you remove some charlie weights for bonus UL increase?

Yes, certainly I can.  But I have not since I came to really enjoy the more centered balance as now the balance is more toward the center instead of near the front.  It makes for a much more nimble light feeling airplane for the hand flying.  But yes there are 19lb back that that I can have removed and still be in my airframe envelope.

[Flyboy10]

and why are the counter balance weights in the tail called "Charlie" weights?

[aviatoreb]

14 minutes ago, Flyboy10 said:

and why are the counter balance weights in the tail called "Charlie" weights?

We can call them Eleanor weights perhaps?

[ArtVandelay]

and why are the counter balance weights in the tail called "Charlie" weights?

It seems to be a Mooney thing...so I’m guessing Charlie was an employee who came up with the idea.

[carusoam]

Bravo weights were already taken..?

-a-

[Igor_U]

Counter-weights = C-weights.