Ovation altitude performance

[Freight Dog]

I'm wondering about some realistic O performance numbers, particularly at altitude. 

I played around on Foreflight, but just wanted to get some real world numbers. Specifically, would you fly the O in the mid-teens if you were going distances if it was advantageous due to wind, how long would it take you to get up there, and how accurate are the FF profiles with regards to fuel burn?

Thanks!

[LANCECASPER]

2 hours ago, Freight Dog said:

I'm wondering about some realistic O performance numbers, particularly at altitude. 

I played around on Foreflight, but just wanted to get some real world numbers. Specifically, would you fly the O in the mid-teens if you were going distances if it was advantageous due to wind, how long would it take you to get up there, and how accurate are the FF profiles with regards to fuel burn?

Thanks!

My experience is limited with the Ovation. I owned a 310hp STC version for about a year and a half.

It is a great airplane at 10,000 and at that altitude and below is as fast as a Bravo and almost as fast as an Acclaim. If you fly it at those altitudes it is the airplane for you.

Personally I was not impressed with the one I owned above 10,000, but keep in mind I was pre-conditioned. Previous Mooneys I had owned were a 231, two Bravos and an Encore, all turbocharged. I bought it because I was in love with the panel that the previous owner had re-done, and it had a service ceiling of 20,000. How could it be that much different than the other Mooneys I had owned with service ceilings in the mid 20's? But after a few trips where I really would have liked to be up in the teens, but in the summer in Texas it just wasn't happening at the climb rate I was getting, I decided to move back to a turbocharged Mooney. 

Ovations outsold every other Mooney since it was introduced in 1994, with over 500 produced, so it is the 1st choice of a lot of people

[GeeBee]

No, I got lots of time in turbos, several thousand, but at my age and with most my flying east of the divide, I don't need to be sucking on a tube to go somewhere. I have the added benefits of not writing checks to maintain the turbo as well. 

[ilovecornfields]

3 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

My experience is limited with the Ovation. I owned a 310hp STC version for about a year and a half.

It is a great airplane at 10,000 and at that altitude and below is as fast as a Bravo and almost as fast as an Acclaim. If you fly it at those altitudes it is the airplane for you.

Personally I was not impressed with the one I owned above 10,000, but keep in mind I was pre-conditioned. Previous Mooneys I had owned were a 231, two Bravos and an Encore, all turbocharged. I bought it because I was in love with the panel that the previous owner had re-done, and it had a service ceiling of 20,000. How could it be that much different than the other Mooneys I had owned with service ceilings in the mid 20's? But after a few trips where I really would have liked to be up in the teens, but in the summer in Texas it just wasn't happening at the climb rate I was getting, I decided to move back to a turbocharged Mooney. 

Ovations outsold every other Mooney since it was introduced in 1994, with over 500 produced, so it is the 1st choice of a lot of people

I would agree with this. It climbs pretty well up to 10k feet. Above 15k you’re only going to get 500-600 fpm. I haven’t flown mine above 16.5k. I have the 310 HP STC as well.

[LANCECASPER]

5 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

No, I got lots of time in turbos, several thousand, but at my age and with most my flying east of the divide, I don't need to be sucking on a tube to go somewhere. I have the added benefits of not writing checks to maintain the turbo as well. 

Not that this should change your mind, but here's one way I justify it: Turbo owners put less hours on their engine, per mile flown, since they get there faster. In a single turbo charged engine, overhauling the turbo at half TBO, which is what some people do, is more than covered by that difference. Plus getting there faster isn't so bad either.

[GeeBee]

Hmmmmm, no. You left out waste gates, controllers, upper deck pressure system and shortened cylinder life. You would be a good sales rep however!

[LANCECASPER]

3 hours ago, GeeBee said:

Hmmmmm, no. You left out waste gates, controllers, upper deck pressure system and shortened cylinder life. You would be a good sales rep however!

Actually you left out those parts when you mentioned that you wanted to not write checks to maintain the turbo.

However in a 231, two Bravos and one Encore I never overhauled a turbo, a waste gate, a controller, an upper deck pressure system, but did overhaul one cylinder on my first Bravo. But on the Ovation I bought, there was a complete top end overhaul done at 1000 hours as a result of the pre-buy inspection I had done.

Although there are exceptions, how it is flown and how it is maintained has much more to do with it.

If at 12,000 feet an Ovation can do 170 and a Bravo can do 187, you’re going 10% faster. That means for every 1000 hours of cruise on the Ovation, the Bravo has covered the same distance in 900 hours. I've owned them both, they are both excellent airplanes but the cost of running them is not much different when you factor everything in. I am new at Acclaim ownership so we'll have to see how that goes, but the speed difference between the Acclaim and the Bravo so far is noteworthy on the same fuel flow. The Acclaim also gives the option of running lean of peak which I am enjoying. 

[Schllc]

I’m a real newbie compared to a lot of you folks,  but I think most of the reputations about turbo caveats and complications are the result of true turbocharged engines.  
While I only have a few hours in a k without an automatic wastegate, I can see how much workload is added with true turbochargers, and how easily damage can occur.  
The bravo and acclaim, are turbo normalized engines, which doesn’t actually increase the operating parameters of the NA engine.  This merely permits it to produce more power at altitudes. I believe if they are flown responsibly and properly the additional operating costs are minimal.
My experience with the tsio550 is well worth whatever marginal costs are incurred to own. 
Everything in aviation is a trade off, and I have found a turbo to provide more than just the ability to go higher and use oxygen. 
However, I agree, if you predominantly fly an hour or under you won’t see much benefit from the turbo. 
Interestingly enough, the tsio550 has a 2200 hour tbo, and the io550 has a 2000 hour tbo. Go figure...

 

[Ragsf15e]

5 hours ago, ilovecornfields said:

I would agree with this. It climbs pretty well up to 10k feet. Above 15k you’re only going to get 500-600 fpm. I haven’t flown mine above 16.5k. I have the 310 HP STC as well.

Only 500-600 fpm at 15k?  That’s awesome!

[GeeBee]

Airplanes, particularly when talking about the same airframe are like women. Speed comes at a price, always has, always will.

 

[LANCECASPER]

14 minutes ago, Ragsf15e said:

Only 500-600 fpm at 15k?  That’s awesome!

Definitely not in the summer in TX

[ilovecornfields]

20 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

Definitely not in the summer in TX

No. Winter in Oregon. 

[carusoam]

TBO for the NA IO550 was also extended to the 2200 mark a decade ago…

To get that, came with caveats….  Fly often, like flight school often…

My O cruises ROP at 175kts, LOP at 165kts, around 10 - 12.5k’…

I really like the 310hp option for the tire burning T/O performance… 

0 - 65 kias in 800’…

Go O!

-a-

[hais]

16 hours ago, Ragsf15e said:

Only 500-600 fpm at 15k?  That’s awesome!

I used to get 500-600 fpm at 5k in a PA28, so I felt that rate at 15k is awesome!

[LANCECASPER]

2200 hour TBO only applies if it’s within 12 years. So if you’re putting 183 hours per year average then most Lycoming and Continentals have a TBO of 2200 rather than 2000.

http://www.continental.aero/uploadedFiles/Content/xImages/TBO Page SIL98-9C.pdf

https://www.lycoming.com/TBO

 

 

[GeeBee]

19 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

Actually you left out those parts when you mentioned that you wanted to not write checks to maintain the turbo.

However in a 231, two Bravos and one Encore I never overhauled a turbo, a waste gate, a controller, an upper deck pressure system, but did overhaul one cylinder on my first Bravo. But on the Ovation I bought, there was a complete top end overhaul done at 1000 hours as a result of the pre-buy inspection I had done.

Although there are exceptions, how it is flown and how it is maintained has much more to do with it.

If at 12,000 feet an Ovation can do 170 and a Bravo can do 187, you’re going 10% faster. That means for every 1000 hours of cruise on the Ovation, the Bravo has covered the same distance in 900 hours. I've owned them both, they are both excellent airplanes but the cost of running them is not much different when you factor everything in. I am new at Acclaim ownership so we'll have to see how that goes, but the speed difference between the Acclaim and the Bravo so far is noteworthy on the same fuel flow. The Acclaim also gives the option of running lean of peak which I am enjoying. 

You also left out cylinders. On average you can expect 40% less life out of cylinders, and they are not cheap. I used to calculate this stuff for check hauling contracts. I could run a normally aspirated 210 for a lot less money than a T210. There are few turbo'd cylinders that make it to TBO. They are going to run hotter, cannot be avoided when you are compressing the intake air. It can be mitigated, but not eliminated. 

[bmcconnaha]

I would absolutely fly an ovation in the mid teens.  I fly my J there often.  Granted it has a 390 in it, and gets there better then it did in stock form.  The ovations I've been in we're happy there.  I just flew mine from Idaho to Texas in the mid teens.  

[Niko182]

I really like 13000 to 16000. It isn't that hard to get up there for me usually.

Edited December 31, 2021 by Niko182

[Cruiser]

Midwest flyers soon realize the going west, they will avoid anything higher than 6,000 feet if they can because of headwinds. Going east there is not much difference between 7,000 and 9,000 and you have to fly longer than two hours to really think about 11,000 or 13,000 feet. 

Flying north or south is a matter of finding the smoothest air and staying there. 

[LANCECASPER]

On 12/31/2021 at 1:30 PM, GeeBee said:

(1) You also left out cylinders. (2) On average you can expect 40% less life out of cylinders, and they are not cheap. I used to calculate this stuff for check hauling contracts. I could run a normally aspirated 210 for a lot less money than a T210. There are few turbo'd cylinders that make it to TBO. They are going to run hotter, (3) cannot be avoided when you are compressing the intake air. It can be mitigated, but not eliminated. 

1. No, not true, I didn't. You apparently missed my post where I mentioned that in 5 turbo-charged Mooneys I've rebuilt one cylinder in a Bravo 22 years ago. However in the Ovation I purchased I discovered low compression on pre-buy and a top-end overhaul was done. The previous owner admitted that he ran it at high power settings. When you run high power settings and then lean it out aggressively you can cook a set of cylinders on any engine. My 30+ years of experiences with this are anecdotal for sure,  and don't reflect everyone's experiences, but how many turbo Mooneys have you owned to share maintenance experience with us on?

2. Again completely not true. Don't do that - making up statistics to try to prove a point is not helpful to anyone. If you didn't make it up then please share a reference from Lycoming or Continental or any other reputable source telling us that you can expect 40% less life on turbocharged cylinders. The compression in the IO-550-G (Ovation) is 8.5:1. Continental lowers the compression to 7.5:1 in the TSIO-550-G (Acclaim) to lower the possibility of detonation and burned pistons, etc. But on either of those two engines or any other engine, if you want to cook the engine you can, if you run it wrong. It all depends on how they are flown. Either engine can be run hot or cool, depending on settings. How much time do you have behind the TSIO-360-SB (Encore engine) TIO-540-AF1B (Bravo engine) or TSIO-550-G (Acclaim engine)?

3. Have you ever heard of intercooling? 5 of the 6 previous  Mooneys I've owned, plus the one I recently purchased, were turbo-charged and intercooled and yes the one that wasn't intercooled ran hot. By the way Cessna never sold an intercooled T-210 or P-210, although later there were STCs for it. The TSIO-520 that was in T-210's and P-210's were notorious for running hot since they were turbocharged without being intercooled. In the P-210 since it was pressurized and almost always run at high altitudes that made it even worse. Heat in general in an internal combustion engine can't be eliminated, but whether it's turbocharged or not it has to be managed. Two things cool our engines, air and fuel. If your air cooling isn't set up properly then you have to keep high fuel flows to keep the temps down. Good, modern baffling manages the airflow properly. Many airplanes have poor, worn out baffling and then people try to run book fuel flow numbers and can’t understand why the CHTs are over 400.

I have no interest in arguing but when you put things out there that simply aren't true I felt I needed to respond to avoid misinformation.  I'm done.

 

[Niko182]

1 hour ago, GeeBee said:

You also left out cylinders. On average you can expect 40% less life out of cylinders, and they are not cheap. I used to calculate this stuff for check hauling contracts. I could run a normally aspirated 210 for a lot less money than a T210. There are few turbo'd cylinders that make it to TBO. They are going to run hotter, cannot be avoided when you are compressing the intake air. It can be mitigated, but not eliminated. 

I think this is more applicable to the acclaims? Dont the bravos regularly make it to tbo without major engine work.

[GeeBee]

1 hour ago, LANCECASPER said:

1. No, not true, I didn't. You apparently missed my post where I mentioned that in 5 turbo-charged Mooneys I've rebuilt one cylinder in a Bravo 22 years ago. However in the Ovation I purchased I discovered low compression on pre-buy and a top-end overhaul was done. The previous owner admitted that he ran it at high power settings. When you run high power settings and then lean it out aggressively you can cook a set of cylinders on any engine. My 30+ years of experiences with this are anecdotal for sure,  and don't reflect everyone's experiences, but how many turbo Mooneys have you owned to share maintenance experience with us on?

2. Again completely not true. Don't do that - making up statistics to try to prove a point is not helpful to anyone. If you didn't make it up then please share a reference from Lycoming or Continental or any other reputable source telling us that you can expect 40% less life on turbocharged cylinders. The compression in the IO-550-G (Ovation) is 8.5:1. Continental lowers the compression to 7.5:1 in the TSIO-550-G (Acclaim) to lower the possibility of detonation and burned pistons, etc. But on either of those two engines or any other engine, if you want to cook the engine you can, if you run it wrong. It all depends on how they are flown. Either engine can be run hot or cool, depending on settings. How much time do you have behind the TSIO-360-SB (Encore engine) TIO-540-AF1B (Bravo engine) or TSIO-550-G (Acclaim engine)?

3. Have you ever heard of intercooling? 5 of the 6 previous  Mooneys I've owned, plus the one I recently purchased, were turbo-charged and intercooled and yes the one that wasn't intercooled ran hot. By the way Cessna never sold an intercooled T-210 or P-210, although later there were STCs for it. The TSIO-520 that was in T-210's and P-210's were notorious for running hot since they were turbocharged without being intercooled. In the P-210 since it was pressurized and almost always run at high altitudes that made it even worse. Heat in general in an internal combustion engine can't be eliminated, but whether it's turbocharged or not it has to be managed. Two things cool our engines, air and fuel. If your air cooling isn't set up properly then you have to keep high fuel flows to keep the temps down. Good, modern baffling manages the airflow properly. Many airplanes have poor, worn out baffling. 

I have no interest in arguing but when you put things out there that simply aren't true I felt I needed to respond to avoid misinformation.  I'm done.

 

To answer your question directly, yes, I have heard of inter cooling and it helps, but it does not return the air to ambient.

 

Now my question.....

 

Have you ever made a living with light airplanes?

[carusoam]

There are two special use cases…

One is more cylinder friendly than the others….

1) Flying efficiently, LOP and CHTs under 380 in cruise….

2) Flying in Flaming Dragon Mode, 50°F ROP covering the ground as quickly as the POH allows….

 

Flaming Dragon Mode can use up a set of cylinders near the halfway point to TBO….

Good CHT control has been known to allow cylinders to go the distance…

 

Some people’s aviation budgets allow for flaming dragon mode…

Other’s… keeps them in the LOP mode….

And a few… alter between the two modes as required…

 

The hard part of buying a plane… is to be able to identify how it has been operated over its lifetime… 
 

For the most part… we are only discussing cylinder health with these details…

The rest of the engine is not that sensitive…

 

Fly often, store indoors…

Go IO550!

Best regards,

-a-

[LANCECASPER]

12 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

To answer your question directly, yes, I have heard of inter cooling and it helps, but it does not return the air to ambient.

 

Now my question.....

 

Have you ever made a living with light airplanes?

No, but thankfully that has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about here. The original post wasn't asking about making a living with light airplanes, just about climb performance. I was merely pointing out the difference between normally aspirated and turbo charged Mooneys from personal experience. Great topic for another thread though.

Feel free to go back and answer the questions you avoided at the end of topics 1 and 2 at your convenience.

[Schllc]

3 hours ago, GeeBee said:

You also left out cylinders. On average you can expect 40% less life out of cylinders, and they are not cheap. I used to calculate this stuff for check hauling contracts. I could run a normally aspirated 210 for a lot less money than a T210. There are few turbo'd cylinders that make it to TBO. They are going to run hotter, cannot be avoided when you are compressing the intake air. It can be mitigated, but not eliminated. 

None of my acclaims have run any hotter than my ovations, at least not how I fly them. 
I am not a mechanic, have never made my living off small planes, and can in no way claim to be an expert on anything aviation, but I am an engineer, and I have rebuilt engines on my cars, boats and motorcycles and have a better than average understanding of how internal combustion’s engines work  

Isn’t a turbo normalized engine different from a true turbocharged engine?

My understanding is that turbo charged engines can increase manifold pressure well beyond sea level, and can extract more from an engine than a naturally aspirated engine can under any conditions, but a turbo normalized engine merely maintains sea level pressure up to altitude. 
How does a TN engine over stress the engine or cause elevated temperatures? (Assuming the engine is flown properly that is...)

I suppose you could call my experience anecdotal as well, but I’d be willing to bet that most early engine failures of both NA and TN engines are primarily a result of bad engine management, I have no real experience with “real turbo’s” so I can’t speak to that dimension, but aside from replacing one turbo that was over ten years old, I haven’t had any issues or addition maintenance on the TN engines I’ve owned. 

What am I missing here?