Ovation altitude performance

[FlyingScot]

Happy New Year to everyone!

I see that the "I fly turbos - I fly NA Mooneys" schism is alive and well!

Let me add my thoughts...

The definitive bottom line is that Mooneys are marvelous airplanes, and I feel truly privileged to have the opportunity to fly them as long as I have (now 32 years and counting...). I love my Ovation, I really do, and, like many of you I have flown a lot of different GA aircraft over the years. Mooneys are marvelous. Every time I slip into the left seat I get a big smile on my face. I noticed that my Acclaim-owning friend a few hangars down has the same smile on his face too.

I have flown Acclaims as well, and the smile appeared on my face then too. Both Ovations and Acclaims, and by extension their M20 brethren of both stripes, are awesome platforms. Which you pick really is personal preference and mission driven, as has been so often said.

For me, I fly in the mid-teens frequently, depending on winds and weather, but my passengers usually prefer lower (10 or even lower), so I am happy to oblige unless conditions don't permit. My O loves 10-12K.  When I am solo I typically fly 10-16. I see 180-185 true ROP at a high cruse power setting all the way up to 14/15K' in fire-breathing mode (which I have to admit is fun albeit more expensive). My O climbs like a homesick angel up to 10, then less so up higher, but 500-600 fpm is no problem in the mid teens; I see 168-174 true LOP at lower power settings, which give me more endurance that my derriere has to be sure.

The difference between the Acclaim and Ovation in my experience is pretty negligible up to 10-ish, higher the Acclaim keeps going strong as the O starts to wane. Personally I don't like wearing masks (I have a beard) so mid-teens and a cannula almost always works just fine for me. And I'm sure the A would shave a few 10's of minutes off my typical trip, but then that's a few 10's of minutes smiling less.

I flew over 200 hrs last year, and fly to the west coast several times a year... as well as the SE US during convection season. I have a son who lives in the Rocky Mountains, so I get to experience those when I visit. The O does just fine in all of these scenarios, and I'm sure an A would be stronger at high altitudes and DA's, but I am quite happy with the O's performance. Bad planning in the mountains doesn't care what plane you are flying...

As the year ends I am just very grateful to be one of the few people who have had the privilege to own and fly one of these marvelous airplanes - and to have the opportunity to interact and share that experience with all of you marvelous people.

So as Tiny Tim said...God bless us, everyone. Have a great New Year y'all.

- Bob

 

[carusoam]

Some things may get lost in the casual conversation…

1) The basic difference between TC and TN for Mooneys…. The CR compression ratio is lower for the TC’d birds…

2) Oddly, the TN’d IO550 is not identical to the NA IO550.  It is slightly lower….

3) The purpose of the CR change, is to allow for the much higher MP that is available… and not cause detonation…

4) The higher the CR goes… the closer to detonation limits one operates… 

5) Higher CRs also generate more mechanical energy out of the fuel… and are known to heat the cylinders a bit more…

6) Great for people that can monitor their engine and fly at the same time…. Not so good for people that don’t want to know what their engine monitor is capable of… or telling them….

7) By TNing our engine we get a couple of things….  Full power from the ground to the FLs…. And…. When losing an output hose from one of the snails… the restart altitude and procedure isn’t much different than restarting an NA version…

8) Everybody loves their intercoolers and pressure controllers…. Almost like having a flight engineer on board for a few minutes each flight… 
 

9) Really important to know… for the 310hp engines… setting full fuel flow takes a bit of documentational effort…. The most cylinder friendly set point is higher than the highest documented setting range…

Happy New Year!

-a-

[GeeBee]

Profitability focuses the mind, and that means knowing what costs, what does not.

 

 

[Schllc]

2 hours ago, GeeBee said:

Profitability focuses the mind, and that means knowing what costs, what does not.

 

 

No argument for that axiom.

However, anyone buying a ga plane with the idea that it will be profitable, probably isn’t fit to possess a pilots license!

happy new year!

[Jeff_S]

Not too many people actually answered the OP's actual question, which was about Ovation performance up high, so here's my experience.  I've had mine (310hp) up as high as 17,500'.  I stopped there because I was just out testing the limits of the airplane in VFR so that was as high as I could go, but really, that's as high as I would want to go anyway.  I don't have built-in O² and no desire to wear a mask, so I was also testing my canula and blood-ox levels at that altitude.

Climb performance was anemic, for sure, but I still managed to get 350 FPM which is fine. The plane definitely rides in more of a mushy attitude up there, but it's not uncomfortable.  There is less stability in roll and pitch due to the lower air pressure on the control surfaces, but again, it doesn't feel too bad. I've attached the performance numbers from this test flying for you to look at.  I did some testing at 12,500 for "best power" vs. "LOP" so you can see there are some gallons to be saved at the expense of just a few knots airspeed.

For real trips, I wouldn't hesitate to get up to 15K on east bound trips and have done so on several occasions. Made it all the way back from Kerrville to Atlanta in 3.8 hours at 15K' one time, and flew several other eastbound trips from Denver, KC, etc at 13-15K'.  If you catch the right tailwinds it sure makes you FEEL like you're flying an Acclaim. But westbound?  Not a lot of advantage doing that unless you get very calm or slight tailwinds, which isn't common.

Hope this helps.

Altitude Climb and Cruise Performance.pdf

[GeeBee]

10 hours ago, Schllc said:

No argument for that axiom.

However, anyone buying a ga plane with the idea that it will be profitable, probably isn’t fit to possess a pilots license!

happy new year!

If you are running a freight operation as a feeder for one of the overnight companies or before the 1990's flying canceled checks for the Federal Reserve, you used light airplanes. It was competitive, profit margins slim,  you beat the snot out of the airplanes and you found out which ones cost more and which did not. Even today, there are hundreds of light airplanes feeding FedEx and UPS every night.  I can also tell you of a major airline that contracts with a Part 135 carrier who uses Aero Commander 500s to move mechanics and parts around in the middle of the night on a stat basis. It is big enough it is their sole business. 

[Hank]

32 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

If you are running a freight operation as a feeder for one of the overnight companies or before the 1990's flying canceled checks for the Federal Reserve, you used light airplanes. It was competitive, profit margins slim,  you beat the snot out of the airplanes and you found out which ones cost more and which did not. Even today, there are hundreds of light airplanes feeding FedEx and UPS every night.  I can also tell you of a major airline that contracts with a Part 135 carrier who uses Aero Commander 500s to move mechanics and parts around in the middle of the night on a stat basis. It is big enough it is their sole business. 

And how does that relate to operational differences between NA and turbo Mooneys? And aren't some true turbocharged engines while others are turbonormalized?

[N201MKTurbo]

There are still freight dogs around here trying to make money with old twin Cessnas. Back in the 80s and 90s they were hauling checks. Now they are hauling anything they can get. The beat up planes that were run out in the 90s are the exact same planes they are still beating up today, with the same avionics and NOP autopilots.

[GeeBee]

44 minutes ago, Hank said:

And how does that relate to operational differences between NA and turbo Mooneys? And aren't some true turbocharged engines while others are turbonormalized?

TN is definitely easier on the engine than TC. That all said, simpler is always cheaper. Because even TN you still have controllers, a wheel and heat albeit less heat, but more heat than a N/A unit. In addition while you may point out less MAP, it is still more pressure differential than N/A. My best SE were 182's and standard 206's. My best multiengine airplanes Aero Commanders and Aztecs. I operated some 402's (I even had s/n 001) and they haul a ton, but intensive under the cowls and the electrical system was always a problem. If I could slap a 206 on a 402 route I would in a NY second.  It sounds counter intuitive, but I operated some early BE-76's that turned out to be great haulers, reliable and that huge rear baggage door is really nice for freight. Bad in icing however.

[exM20K]

@Schllc the TSIO550G is kinda turbonormalized.  It has the low compression pistons, though, so it is not as efficient as the IO550.  HP LOP IS 13.7x fuel flow in GPH vs something considerably higher in the NA plane.  IIRC, Ovations burn something like 12.5 vs my 16.5 to make the same power.  Especially with gas prices where they are now, this is a big factor in DOC.

Cooling inlets on TN are huge compared to Ovation, and I believe they generally run cooler.  I’m somewhere between 320-340 most of the year, even in the Florida summer.

The C&D hourly DOC estimates when the used to publish were something like $205 vs $187. Not life changing money.

I topped mine but only because it sat idle for a long time, resulting in significant corrosion in the cylinders.

The TN is much more capable, but that’s only meaningful if you’re going to use that capability. If you frequently climb to mid teens or higher, wouldn’t you rather climb to altitude at 12-1500FPM instead of 500 for the last part of the climb? 
 

I don’t know how to say this without sounding like a jerk, so I’ll just say it.  If you can’t stroke a check occasionally for $1500 or so for turbo component service, you probably shouldn’t be flying a multi-hundred thousand dollar plane. Ditto a $12-15,000 top overhaul.  Do the math.  It’s $6 x $7.50 per hour.  The fuel burn difference dwarfs that.

If mission calls for a turbo, buy a turbo.  Buy right, buy once.

-dan

Edited January 1, 2022 by exM20K

[M20F-1968]

On 12/30/2021 at 5:57 PM, 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!

With one exception, the lowly turbo-normalized F or J.

John Breda

[Schllc]

38 minutes ago, exM20K said:

@Schllc the TSIO550G is kinda turbonormalized.  It has the low compression pistons, though, so it is not as efficient as the IO550.  HP LOP IS 13.7x fuel flow in GPH vs something considerably higher in the NA plane.  IIRC, Ovations burn something like 12.5 vs my 16.5 to make the same power.  Especially with gas prices where they are now, this is a big factor in DOC.

Cooling inlets on TN are huge compared to Ovation, and I believe they generally run cooler.  I’m somewhere between 320-340 most of the year, even in the Florida summer.

The C&D hourly DOC estimates when the used to publish were something like $205 vs $187. Not life changing money.

I topped mine but only because it sat idle for a long time, resulting in significant corrosion in the cylinders.

The TN is much more capable, but that’s only meaningful if you’re going to use that capability. If you frequently climb to mid teens or higher, wouldn’t you rather climb to altitude at 12-1500FPM instead of 500 for the last part of the climb? 
 

I don’t know how to say this without sounding like a jerk, so I’ll just say it.  If you can’t stroke a check occasionally for $1500 or so for turbo component service, you probably shouldn’t be flying a multi-hundred thousand dollar plane. Ditto a $12-15,000 top overhaul.  Do the math.  It’s $6 x $7.50 per hour.  The fuel burn difference dwarfs that.

If mission calls for a turbo, buy a turbo.  Buy right, buy once.

-dan

Dan,

I’ve got close to 1000 hours in three ovations and three acclaims over the last six years, I pay very close attention to my engine management, as well as data logging most of. My flights.  So I’m pretty confident about the numbers I’ve seen in my planes. 
 

Do you have gami’s in your acclaim?

If not I highly recommend you get them.
There was a wide variance in FF and speed from my o3 to my first acclaim until I got them.
My first acclaim didn’t fly well LOP until I got the gami’s, but after, my ff went down almost 4gph at ROP (same TAS) and I could fly smoothly LOP very comfortably. 
JP at gami, told me when I sent him my data logs, it was one of the worst spreads he has seen.  
I can get very close to ovation numbers in my acclaim if I fly it the same way.   
I do not see a 4gph fuel flow difference for sure, maybe 1 or less.  
What I mean is if I go to 10k the ovation will only be able to get about 21” of mp, so if I take my acclaim to 10k and dial it back to 21”(maybe it was 12k, can’t remember for sure) the FF is less than 1gph different. 
Bottom line is that I can fly my acclaim with very similar numbers and speeds as the ovation if I want to slow down and save gas. It isn’t “as” efficient, but it isn’t that different either.

It would appear to me that aside from being able to run at actual 65% hp longer for more time because of TN, how exactly does this induce more stress on the engine?
 

[exM20K]

30 minutes ago, Schllc said:

Dan,

I’ve got close to 1000 hours in three ovations and three acclaims over the last six years, I pay very close attention to my engine management, as well as data logging most of. My flights.  So I’m pretty confident about the numbers I’ve seen in my planes. 
 

Do you have gami’s in your acclaim?

If not I highly recommend you get them.
There was a wide variance in FF and speed from my o3 to my first acclaim until I got them.
My first acclaim didn’t fly well LOP until I got the gami’s, but after, my ff went down almost 4gph at ROP (same TAS) and I could fly smoothly LOP very comfortably. 
JP at gami, told me when I sent him my data logs, it was one of the worst spreads he has seen.  
I can get very close to ovation numbers in my acclaim if I fly it the same way.   
I do not see a 4gph fuel flow difference for sure, maybe 1 or less.  
What I mean is if I go to 10k the ovation will only be able to get about 21” of mp, so if I take my acclaim to 10k and dial it back to 21”(maybe it was 12k, can’t remember for sure) the FF is less than 1gph different. 
Bottom line is that I can fly my acclaim with very similar numbers and speeds as the ovation if I want to slow down and save gas. It isn’t “as” efficient, but it isn’t that different either.

It would appear to me that aside from being able to run at actual 65% hp longer for more time because of TN, how exactly does this induce more stress on the engine?
 

Mine came with CMI’s Platinum!!! Engine, this is flow and mass balanced.  It’s a really nice piece of work, and it runs happily all the way down to 100* LOP.  
 

I do not believe that the TN induces more stress than the NA engine.  Mine runs cool as a cucumber all the way up to the low FL’s. I simply point out the low hourly accrual for the top overhaul because others raise it as a show stopper financially.  It is not, and I’ve seen no evidence that the TSIO550 variants consume cylinders at a greater rate than the IO550’s do,.  Even if true, this MX cost doesn’t even make the financial needle quiver, especially in a world of $5+ per gallon a gas.

Both are very smooth, efficient gas aviation engines, and I am very glad to be able to own one.

[GeeBee]

If you like flying in the mid-teens, great! I don't. I don't like wearing a mask, cannula etc. My wife really does not like it. Since I rarely fly west

of the divide, a turbo is a waste of money for me, regardless of how cheap it is, it still costs more and I don't need it. I never have to be anywhere ( I am retired) and if I can't top the weather, I don't go that day. If I don't need it, why buy it and maintain it? I have FIKI. Is it for everybody? Nope, but I use it. Not everything is for everybody.  I think we should have learned that the past year.

[TigerFan]

Just buy a M20K 252 problem solved. You will be extremely happy down low or up high. It’s just that amazing. Feliz Ano from Honduras!!!!!

[Will.iam]

12 hours ago, TigerFan said:

Just buy a M20K 252 problem solved. You will be extremely happy down low or up high. It’s just that amazing. Feliz Ano from Honduras!!!!!

I tend to agree tigerfan that’s why i bought one

[carusoam]

I agree with Tiger fan too…

Need pics of Honduras!

Happy New year!

-a-

[TigerFan]

A few pics from Nica & Honduras. Amazing people and beautiful places in both countries. Saw one Mooney and several Bos at the airport in Managua when departing. Would love to take my Mooney on the next trip down! Anyone have experience flying in Nica or Honduras? 

[carusoam]

See if @Oscar Avalle is around…

He is more familiar with that area…

Nice pics,

Best regards,

-a-

[Schllc]

4 hours ago, TigerFan said:

A few pics from Nica & Honduras. Amazing people and beautiful places in both countries. Saw one Mooney and several Bos at the airport in Managua when departing. Would love to take my Mooney on the next trip down! Anyone have experience flying in Nica or Honduras? 

 

contact this guy  he has all the deets

For details go to: www.CaribbeanFlyingAdventures.com   or contact Jim Parker 305-667-6282 Jim@CaribbeanFlyingAdventures.com

 

[rbp]

12 hours ago, Schllc said:

www.CaribbeanFlyingAdventures.com

 

a clean link: http://caribbeanflyingadventures.com/

 

[Oscar Avalle]

19 hours ago, TigerFan said:

A few pics from Nica & Honduras. Amazing people and beautiful places in both countries. Saw one Mooney and several Bos at the airport in Managua when departing. Would love to take my Mooney on the next trip down! Anyone have experience flying in Nica or Honduras? 

Nice pictures!!!! I am pretty familiar with both countries. Honduras is friendlier to GA, Nicaragua is a bit more complicated. I flew into Managua once with my Mooney. Interesting adventure, expensive, but worthwhile and doable. Honduras, not an issue, very easy. The best thing to do is to hire a handler that helps you with all the paperwork. Not essential, but it takes away worries in terms of paperwork, etc.

If you are interested in flying into Central America, just PM me and I will be happy to help. Enjoy the cats!!!

Oscar 

[Little Dipper]

I've had my Ovation up to 19,000 between Denver and California on my old 280 hp engine many years ago.  It seemingly took forever to get from 15,000 to 19,000.    I am based on the east coast and you don't need to go high.  The only time I go above 13K is to take advantage of the winds if I am traveling a long distance like from Chicago to Phila.    My new engine and prop get me up to 15k pretty easy after that the Ovation runs out of breath.

[irishpilot]

On 12/30/2021 at 5:39 PM, LANCECASPER said:

. 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. 

I beg to disagree. Operating costs are higher for Bravos as well as engine reserve. Bravo engines are around $80k reman and around $65k for field overhaul. Those are ballpark. I think IO-550G/Ns are $60k and $40k respectively. Bravos are also very thirsty. Mine averaged 18.5 gph. The IO-500 loves LOP and gets 12.5-13 gph doing so. It's simpler to operate and you don't have TIT issues to worry about. A bravo with wet wing isn't a 200 kt bird unless you go to the FLs. Mine was a good 185 kt bird at 17.5 and 194 kt bird at FL210. 

Bravos are a great plane, but you need to be in the FLs to really see the speed differential. I currently fly a plane with the IO-550N and love it's simplicity and speed.

[LANCECASPER]

2 hours ago, irishpilot said:

I beg to disagree. Operating costs are higher for Bravos as well as engine reserve. Bravo engines are around $80k reman and around $65k for field overhaul. Those are ballpark. I think IO-550G/Ns are $60k and $40k respectively. Bravos are also very thirsty. Mine averaged 18.5 gph. The IO-500 loves LOP and gets 12.5-13 gph doing so. It's simpler to operate and you don't have TIT issues to worry about. A bravo with wet wing isn't a 200 kt bird unless you go to the FLs. Mine was a good 185 kt bird at 17.5 and 194 kt bird at FL210. 

Bravos are a great plane, but you need to be in the FLs to really see the speed differential. I currently fly a plane with the IO-550N and love it's simplicity and speed.

I didn't say that there wasn't any difference in cost , only that "the cost of running them is not much different when you factor everything in".

Another reason for that is that almost all Bravo owners go to TBO on their first set of cylinders if they run it properly.  However on Continentals 6 cylinders, including the one I now have on the Acclaim, it seems that many, even who run cool temperatures, still need new cylinders around 1000 hours. That plus the fact that you're covering more distance per engine hour narrrows the gap.

By the way a factory overhaul on a Bravo engine as of today is $70231. https://airpowerinc.com/henpl-9906    A factory reman is $76731. (https://airpowerinc.com/renpl-9906) If it's a first run engine with no field overhaul, Lycoming will usually give you a factory reman for the price of a factory overhaul.

I try not to do a lot of math when it comes to flying expenses, but if you just factor in the cost of a 1000 hour top overhaul on the Continental - the cost of the engine between the Ovation and The Bravo over 2000 hours is too close to call. Then if you figure going the number of miles flown on 10 percent less engine hours, or even figure 8% less if you want and that covers a lot of the fuel difference.

In my experience, having owned three Bravos and one Ovation over three decades, I don't believe there is a huge difference in the costs of running the two, but I agree that it does cost more to run a Bravo. In aviation terms however it's not a huge difference when you factor everything in. I personally felt the better climb performance as you went past 10,000 feet was worth every cent of difference. Others may not agree. Flying an airplane is all about how we justify it, definitely not common sense.